Epstein Files Full PDF

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 February 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In what order are these funerals listed? Doesn't seem to be alphabetical or chronological, or by number of attendants. - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be in date order now.

Not sure why it includes Caesar, then no-one else till the 19th c.

Omissions numerous, before and after Caesar, and in the late 19th c too. I nominate Nelson and Verdi, for a start. Oh, and why is bigger better? How about Mozart? Rank and fame are mere baubles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.174.26 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of funerals. 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/20141025121723/http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/articulos/vuelta_de_peron/muerte_de_juan_domingo_peron.php to http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/articulos/vuelta_de_peron/muerte_de_juan_domingo_peron.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927071913/http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2004/pr_06-11-04.php to http://www.uscapitolpolice.gov/pressreleases/2004/pr_06-11-04.php

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) 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of funerals. 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/20140413145649/http://news.egypt.com/en/death-and-funeral-of-gamal-abdel-nasser.html to http://news.egypt.com/en/death-and-funeral-of-gamal-abdel-nasser.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Music/Lakhs-turn-out-to-pay-last-respects-to-Bhupen-Hazarika/Article1-766668.aspx

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) 13:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karunanidhi funeral in Chennai 09/0818 Crowd gathering approx 2000000 people

Jeba1986 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been repeated, non-stop attempts to inflate the figure. Do we stick with the 200,000 estimated by Reuters (who are clearly reliable), or the unclear figure estimated by Data Stories, who don't even give a figure but three estimates from an app. FDW777 (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding any claims of around 14,000,000, see WP:REDFLAG. FDW777 (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this reference, it cites a journalist as saying So far I am told Millions have gathered for a funeral at Minar E Pakistan. I do not know how people can be counted. Told by who? He himself says he's basically got no idea how many people are there. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Data Stories don't even provide a figure. They aren't even making a credible estimate. They use an app, and don't even draw any conclusions from what the app says. See also the discussion at Talk:Khadim Hussain_Rizvi#How Many People's in the Funeral of Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi.

Reuters are listed as reliable at WP:RSP. Data Stories are not. FDW777 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The National. This says

• Tens of thousands of people have ignored Covid-19 restrictions and gathered for the funeral prayers
• and appeared to be one of the biggest crowds ever seen in the Punjab city of more than 11 million people
• Local observers estimated attendance could have run to several hundred thousand

It is difficult to take them particularly seriously when they give three different figures in the space of a few short paragraphs. FDW777 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mr.CEO of Wikipedia i want to request to change/edit last funeral of this list. i am waiting for your permissions. thanks Mreditorcorrect (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No change suggested, if a reference is provided a change might be made. FDW777 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hope you are doing well. So recently I was researching about how much people attended Maulana Khadim Hussain Rizvi Funeral and I founded out it's more than 1 million. And is from Google maps so it's authentic too. Please update it. We shall be very grateful to you. Attaching link of Google Map picture in case it's required http://www.datastories.pk/estimating-the-number-of-people-who-attended-khadim-rizvis-funeral/ 39.33.185.102 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See section above at #Khadim Hussain Rizvi. The reference you provide does not even give an estimate of their own, only three figures provided by an app from which it chooses not to draw any conclusion regarding the attendance. FDW777 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither reference provided gives any figure at all for the attendance. FDW777 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the second one does given an attendace, given it says As many as 10 lakh (one lakh = 100,000) I'm not feeling particularly minded to self-revert with a corrected figure, since it was a disruptive addition of 2,400,000 to begin with. FDW777 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add puneeth Rajkumar 2409:4071:4D8A:F53E:0:0:ED0A:7208 (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer independent reliable sources that discuss attendance figures for his funeral. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I sort the table by number of attendees going greatest-least, the number ~1,000,000 appears before the two funerals at ~2,000,000. Not sure if this is intentional because they aren't exact figures; but I don't know how to edit tables and don't want to break anything. :-)
Thanks, Gageills (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was about to make a section of the same thing regarding the table order, it goes from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 (for 3 rows), then 20,000 and then 100,000, and many more wrong in order, I would assume it might have to do something with the "~" symbols and how some are written like "thousands" or "nearly". It's even worse when trying to sort via television audience. I will hope it gets fixed, but there is still a mess going on from what I see, so perhaps after. - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be a problem when sorting by date. Sorting by date only arranges the months in alphabetical order, instead of by chronological order. Potatoplantation (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gageills @RandomEditorAAA @Potatoplantation

I fixed sorting by No. of attendees and Television audience. Regarding the dates, IMO it's something nice to have but not a high priority because the table as default is sorted by dates in the ascending order (when you've already clicked a column header to start sorting, you can just reload the page). Grillofrances (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great job and thank you Grillofrances for your work! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton! Gageills (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For source u can ask ChiefMinister of karnataka or any NewsChanels 2401:4900:4E54:127D:55F8:6088:BAE8:BB57 (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to us to find sources for your proposed edits, you must provide them. Asking a government official is not an independent reliable source that can be verified. If the attendance of this person's funeral is discussed in independent sources, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 October 2021, Puneeth complained of uneasiness to his wife Ashwini, and died on his way to the hospital at the age of 46. The reason for his death was declared to be cardiac arrest. He donated his eyes in accordance with a pledge by his father Rajkumar, that he along with all his family members will donate their eyes after death.The donation of his eyes has given eyesight to four different people.His state funeral was attended by the Chief Minister of Karnataka, Basavaraj Bommai and other leaders. His body was kept for public view at Kanteerava stadium for 3 days, and was reportedly attended by more than 25 lakh people. He was buried alongside his parents at Sree Kanteerava Studios in Bangalore. and Many of his fans died of hearing the news of death of their beloved Star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Boregowda (talk • contribs) 05:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice if the table would be sortable 185.162.3.149 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can usually be done with the Template:Nts but from my attempts it doesn't work properly here due to symbols and words in front of the numbers, plus a lot of the fields contain "millions" and "thousands" which are not numbers. -Vipz (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipz

I fixed sorting by numbers, using the nts template. Alternatively, data-sort-value attribute could have been used which would be clearer - still the same text could be displayed but with sorting fixed. When using the nts template, I needed to change the displayed text as it doesn't seem to allow setting a custom post-fix (only prefix). I needed to change also numbers as text into digits so now, instead of "Millions" it displays "at least 1,000,000". Grillofrances (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working that out! -Vipz (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, since the list subject is the size, should it not be default organised by size? There are surely other ways to organise to be more informative, too, like splitting by country to give a better comparison? Kingsif (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article states, that the number of attendees at the funeral of Engelbert Dollfuss amounted to at least 11,000,000. Bearing in mind the the TOTAL Austrian population in 1934 was around 6.4 Mio people the number is not credible at all. Could someone please check the source? Gugganij (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is a garbage claim. I am removing it and replacing it with the 500,000 given by Time Magazine (which is also included on Dollfuss' main page). Horarum (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pagevseemed much easier to follow presented chronologically. I'd suggest it go back to that form and be renamed 'List of notable funerals' or, if kept as is, provide an either/or option. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: See the recent page history. I tried to restore the last stable version but the person who overhauled this page is now stonewalling.[1][2]. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Ratnahastin. I'm not very much involved with this page, just thought that the chronological format works better and liked how you recently reverted the page. This new numerical format seems to be based on including the television audiences as "attending", a concept that maybe comes from the number of people watching sports events or things like the Apollo 11 Moon mission, so the numbers are either inflated or deflated by how many national or international television networks cover a funeral and for how long. I'd personally leave it at physical attendees if numbers are the format, but yes, the chronological format is a much better way of assessing the relative attention given to individual funerals. I'd include information about the lying-in-state numbers, but to each their own view of how such a page should be presented. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes this page is supposed to be only about attendees in person, not the speculated figures based on TV viewers or online viewers which are ought to be inflated by the PR agencies that have promoted these events. Talking about those who were not physically present at the funeral actually defeats the purpose of this page. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The television audiences, if they are included within the chronological order and not as the determinative factor of page listing, seem like good information (but not, as mentioned, as the way of ordering the page's entries). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin, you were edit warring and I told you to discuss, I did not originally undo your reversions, and I would recommend you not insult other editors while trying to hide your own edit warring.

Rather than two editors (also @Randy Kryn:) go back and forth about what you think the list should be in theory, I will happily moderate this (rather than weigh in, as an involved party).

Looks like there are some options on how to structure the article, based on your combined thoughts so far:

1. Chronologically, which would require a page move. (I would also suggest sectioning so people can actually follow on most devices without getting lost in endless tables)
2. By attendance, physical attendance only
3. By attendance, including broadcast attendance and/or lying-in-state attendance
4. Some other order that reflects "relative attention" (importance?) as the main sorting factor

Would you like to discuss the merits of all these; would you like wider attention for this discussion? Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kingif, for presenting the options. A chronological listing, as this page was presented until very recently, does not necessarily require a name change. This is not a list of every funeral but a list of notable large funerals, and doesn't need to be ordered by attendance (the name implies notability of the person being funeraled, to coin a word, it just takes note that the funeral was prominent within society). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "largest" mean to you, then? The article was always about attendance size, that's the scope. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we should also alert @Never17:, the user who restored and who Ratnahastin started their edit warring with. Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did i do? Never17 (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is supposed to be only about attendees in person. Your edits are bringing up speculated figures based on TV viewers or online viewers which are ought to be inflated by the PR agencies. That defeats the purpose of this page which is all about physical attendance. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's note that it is an opinion that this article should only include physical attendance, and people are allowed to have another opinion: outright stating it's the only way isn't conducive to discussion. The characterisation of PR is also an opinion, and one that doesn't really matter here, in the sense of the numbers being WP:V at least. Not to mention, one could say it's easier for the figures of physical attendance to be inflated (hard to count) than the stats of a broadcaster that are logged digitally, if going down that road rather than just saying "estimated" or "approximate" in the article. Kingsif (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff - just thought it appropriate you be notified, you don't have to have an opinion. Kingsif (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ratnahastin and Randy Kryn: Since I've been reminded of this issue, here's a reminder to you both that this discussion is here and should be resolved - reverting BOLD edits must be discussed, and not only until others stop pushing for them. It's all well and good for you to say that other users can't force changes (i.e. make good faith improvement edits), but then refusing to discuss those changes is effectively preventing them from happening and thus forcing your own preferred version. And without having really provided an explanation as to why you think the proposed changes made the article worse, too. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping Kingsif, I haven't looked at the page since I left my last note. Will read the comments since and catch up. Still think the chronological order serves the page best, but if there's disagreement then more editors should be alerted. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, I've also been busy. Would love to hear reasons for your thoughts, too. It's not a high-trafficked article so small consensus will probably suffice for now. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Chronological order is fine, people can always sort by in the person attendance or broadcast viewership if they want Never17 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The chronological ordering also might catch readers interest because the list starts out with some pre-radio/TV high-profile personalities. Am fine with keeping the sourced numbers for approximate viewers or radio listeners, which gives another metric of interest and arguably goes to 'largest', but within the chronological format. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ebrahim Raisi's funeral also seemed so crowded. It was reprtedly held by more than 3 million people Aminabzz (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of attendees for Rafic Hariri keeps being altered, and I’ve provided several reliable sources to support the correct figure. It appears that these changes are being made without any fact-checking, likely driven by political motives. Could anyone kindly offer advice on how to stop the daily alterations of these numbers? Lina Du Liban (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of funerals of those like Princess Diana saying 2.5 x 10^9 (about 2.5 billion) whereas funerals of those like Queen Elizabeth II much more logically say 4,000,000,000 or so? StrawWord298944 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

4th is zubeen garg 2409:40E6:246:6F9A:690B:CD3C:8F1E:19A0 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jolielover♥talk 14:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See news on Zubeen garg. Search Google about Zubeen garg. See twitter on Chief minister Himanta Biswa Sharma. 152.59.152.254 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the fraudulent attempts at referencing show no sign of stopping. The Hindu say Thousands of grieving fans had thronged the venue since morning, while Hinduastan times say Thousands of people gathered in Guwahati on Sunday. So no, we're not adding a claim of a million. FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

I understand that the "fourth largest funeral gathering" and "Limca Book of Records" claims might sound inflated, so here I am adding some sources where the minimum count is or above 100,000 (or one lakh in Indian system) is mentioned: [3] (>100,000), [4] (>700,000), [5] (~1,500,000), [6] (~1,000,000), [7] (>100,000). Also, none of these sources mention the earlier mentioned claim. Wiki.editAnshu (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5000000 plus 2409:408A:810F:1FC5:0:0:8CE:AD (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5.5 million people gathering 157.42.21.243 (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many people attended the actual funeral? I have removed the entry entirely pending an answer on this. FDW777 (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the "fourth largest funeral gathering" and "Limca Book of Records", the commonly associated claim is that it is comparable to those of Michael Jackson, Pope Francis, and Elizabeth Windsor. None of them are close to being the top three, at least according to this article and the cited references. FDW777 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 'thousands' to '2,000,000' in Zubeen Garg funeral (September 19-23) Pritamjb (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nubzor [T][C] 00:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Zubeen Garg's Funeral procession now ranks 4 on the list. N nilanjan (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC) https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/zubeen-gargs-funeral-in-guwahati-listed-as-fourth-biggest-gathering-enters-limca-book-of-records-101758541214756.html N nilanjan (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC) https://www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment/zubeen-garg-s-funeral-becomes-forth-biggest-gathering-enters-limca-book-of-records-article-13565844.html N nilanjan (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC) https://www.sentinelassam.com/topheadlines/zubeen-gargs-farewell-becomes-fourth-largest-gathering-enters-limca-book-of-records N nilanjan (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. First reference says Thousands of people, second reference simply says lakhs, third reference simply says lakhs. I'm also totally against any claim it's been listed as one of the fourth-largest gatherings globally, since none of the references containing that claim even bother to give a precise, or even rough, estimate. FDW777 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In zubeen garg's funeral more than 15 lakh people come in one day and more than 15 on other day. And total about 1 crore. It is ine of the largest funerals in india. He was a legend. People are in deep mourning. 2405:201:A806:E17C:E5E1:3230:6603:8B26 (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No references. FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Large number of people paid homage to Zubeen Garg in different cities across India and in Guwahati 15 lakh on 20 Jan night, 15 to 20 lakh on 21 January 2025 in Guwahati, 50 lakh around in Guwahati on 22 January 2025 and 15 to 22 lakh in kamarkuchi on 23 January 2025. Also many lakh of people paid homage to him in jorhat and many other cities across Assam. Deep state of mourning in Assam. All shops, schools ,markets, everything including swiggy and blinkit for three days. Everybody crying and people are not eating food. Got state funeral. Largest in India. Please edit. It is not thousands but crore of people from every age, gender and religion. 2405:201:A806:E17C:E5E1:3230:6603:8B26 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zubeen garg more than 15-20 lakh 2409:40E6:207:FBD1:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No references. FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Requesting to review the funeral of The One of the greatest Artist late Zubeen Garg. It is written Thousands in wikipedia. It is clearly not thousands it should be in top 5 there were millions of people and it is also shown in news officially. who ever edited this does not know who he was please refrain from such disrespectful activities. 117.238.108.254 (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No references. FDW777 (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is zubeen garg name in this list , please update the list put zubeen garg name in 4th position, almost 10 lakhs people were present at the time of his funeral 2409:40E6:30:BDF5:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that figure? Was it not 8,000,000? Or 1,100,000? Or 1,000? Or 1,000,000? Or 4,000,000? Or 5,000,000? Or 10,000,000? Or 6,600,000? Or 7,000,000? Or 1,500,000? Those are just from the article edits, I can't even be bothered to detail the numerous claims on the talk page about how many people were supposed to be there. FDW777 (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the media channel of india and as per assam cm told that laks of people were gathered and also the visuals of gathered people prove it 2409:40E6:30:BDF5:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lots is as meaningless as it gets. Come back when you have references and proper figures. FDW777 (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheWire.in media also mentioned "millions of people" gathered and AajTak media and all other indian media including regional media mentioned lakhs of people and it is officially announced that zubeen garg funeral gathering is fourth largest in the world then why his name is not mentioned yet 2409:40E6:38:7B35:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Zubeen Garg. 35 lakh people attended the funeral 2405:201:A806:E17C:C848:73B5:1FA0:9BE5 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nubzor [T][C] 17:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truth12345678 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 15:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I looked into this further. Regional outlets such as GuwahatiPlus and The New Indian explicitly reported that **over 15 lakh (≈1.5 million) people** gathered at Sarusajai Stadium and along the procession route to pay their respects.[1][2] Major national outlets (Indian Express, Times of India, Deccan Herald) described the turnout in broader terms such as “lakhs” of mourners without giving a precise number.[3][4][5]

Truth12345678 (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truth12345678 (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 15:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The claim that "200,000 people" attended Charlie Kirk’s memorial comes from an AOL article repeating organizer figures.[1] However, per WP:V and WP:RS, this figure is not supported by independent reporting. Reliable sources including *The Arizona Republic* (citing Glendale police) and *Fox News Digital* reported that **about 90,000 people attended**, with~70,000 inside State Farm Stadium and the remainder in overflow venues.[2][3] Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, the weight of evidence supports ~90,000 attendees; the 200,000 figure should be described, if at all, as an unverified organizer claim rather than fact.

Truth12345678 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request: Remove the entry for Charlie Kirk’s memorial service.

Rationale: The reported figure of 200,000 attendees comes only from organizer claims.^[1] Independent reliable sources report approximately 90,000 attendees, with ~70,000 inside State Farm Stadium and the remainder in overflow areas.^[2][3] The 200,000 figure is therefore unreliable per WP:V and WP:RS, and the entry does not meet inclusion criteria based on verified attendance. Dreamer765 (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Please establish a consensus before requesting the removal of the entry. For now, I've corrected the numbers. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 07:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV does not permit the exclusion of a lower figure, in fact it's the exact opposite. Since there are competing claims as to how many people were there, a range is needed. FDW777 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being "outdated", the 700,000 figure was published after the second reference, and also after the first Deccan Herald article that the second article cites as its source. FDW777 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dick measuring contest is continuing with these edits. Ignoring the removal of the lower figure for obvious reasons, this reference says 1,500,000 (so consistent with existing figure), this reference says nothing relevant other than a vague "millions", this reference says nothing relevant other than a vague "millions". Since none of them reference the new upper figure, I have restored the consensus version. Further discussion welcome, but that's not likely is it? FDW777 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add Indian singer Zubeen Garg as his funeral was the 4th largest in the world 49.37.8.81 (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is already on the list, and no it wasn't the fourth largest in the world. I recommend looking where the ones claimed to be the largest by Indian media actually appear on this list, to see how wrong the claim was. FDW777 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General John Monash had 300,000 at his funeral. See source at this link:

Monash died of heart disease in Melbourne on 8 October 1931 and was given a state funeral attended by some 300,000 mourners.

He was unbelievable WW1 hero few people know about:

Brigadier General, Colonel, General, Lieutenant Colonel, Lieutenant General, Major General, Temporary Brigadier General, Temporary Lieutenant General Dougschi (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1D1M22BAfc/ Aw051 (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook isn't a reference. FDW777 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the platform where it was posted, the analysis on the other hand, sounds credible to me. Aw051 (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't care less, per WP:RSPFACEBOOK Facebook isn't a reference so the analysis is meaningless and can't be used. FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also we include the upper possible total of 3,200,000 for Khaleda Zia. But we also include the lower total the reference says, that of 1,600,000. FDW777 (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly follow up on Rails Odinga State Funeral Had around 45000 attendees or more MutieEvans (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Benjamin Franklin (20,000 attendees), per the Benjamin Franklin wikipedia page: https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Death ~2026-89661-7 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Note that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRC). Day Creature (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]