Jump to content

Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 53°24′42″N 1°30′06″W / 53.41154°N 1.50154°W / 53.41154; -1.50154
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Trevor Hicks

This article mentions trevor hicks, but fails to say who he is! Can someone add a line?

The Sun boycott

I saw in the edits that "The Sun newspaper - Removed unsubstianted claim of loss of earnings of The Sun". Thought I'd check on this and in an article in the 20th March, 2003 edition of the Press Gazette (the "bible" of the UK newspaper industry) the following appeared:

"The Sun is still struggling with the legacy of Hillsborough, 14 years after the most disastrous publishing decision in the newspaper’s history, the National Readership Survey’s figures suggest. In North West England, The Sun is a poor second to the Daily Mirror.

It has been estimated that the boycott has cost News International £125 million in revenue and half a billion in sales and the newspaper is acutely aware of this:

"Ian Clarke, advertising director at The Sun, admitted this week: 'We know it was a mistake .... but every year it [the boycott] softens slightly as a younger audience comes through."

Might be worth adding?

The accusations of lies and smears against the Sun may well be true but is it impartial or relevant?

Trewornan

It's absolutely relevant. The resentment that this supposed news journal generated with its callous and insensitive comments is incalculable. Lee M 02:46, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
May they rest in peace

Yes, may all the people who tragically lost their lives rest in peace. But this tribute is not suitable to be put into an encyclopedia article. --Lorenzarius 18:09 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

A large amount of (admittedly POV) information added by IP: 194.205.123.7 was deleted without discussion by User:Fennec. The reasons for this deletion should have been discussed here. Some of it could have been utilised. Mintguy (T) 17:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What does it mean by, "... caused a crush"? Did the building collapse? Did they jump on and kill 90-odd people? ugen64 21:26, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

It means that people were crushed against each other and the barriers as more and more people piled into an area not sufficiently large to hold them. I agree it needs rewording. In fact just re-reading the article there are a lot of things that need to be explained. Some years prior to the incident the stadium has been fitted with a tall security barriers at the front of terraces just infront of the pitch in order to prevent pitch invasions and other acts of hooliganism. Football in England had been plagued by hooliganism for many years and a number of clubs had installed these barriers. The victims of this distaster were pushed up against these barriers as more and more people were funneled into this section of the ground. For the people at the front of the crowd there was nowhere to go to escape being crushed by those behind. Mintguy (T)
See also the Guardian's comment on it, from the Monday after the disaster. Arwel 12:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've added quite a bit to make the details clearer and explain how the crush occured. I've also added some references to the accusations of crowd misbehaviour which I realise are sensitive but felt should be included. I still feel that the section on the sun should (at least) be abridged.

Reworking

I think the article needs a bit more work. The opening paragraph begins "Football been been plagued by hooliganism ..." immediately gives rise to the thought that hooliganism directly caused the tragedy, rather than hooliganism indirectly causing the physical environment in which the tragedy happened. Jooler

Why is the first paragraph in the past tense? IE: "Football had been plagued by hooliganism for year", "terraces were cheaper standing areas without seats".

I'm no expert, but as far as I know hooliganism is still a large problem and they still have terraces don't they?

Hooliganism was a problem for over 10 years before Hillsborough, but it is not now a problem within UK stadia (though as we've seen this week, it still is in Italy). And no, there are no terraces at English League grounds since soon after the Taylor Report. -- Arwel 19:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I was thinking of rugby grounds.
Well, the article's not talking about rugby grounds - all the national stadia at any rate are all seater, and when on earth was there a case of crowd violence at a rugby match (as opposed to punch-ups between players?). -- Arwel 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've seen the occasional loose fist between supporters at rugby matches - but only at a very local level (I'm thinking of two small Cornish towns in particular, I'd better not name them).Trewornan
As an Italian myself, I think it's rather unfair to single out Italy (or any other country for that matter) that it still has hooliganism. ALL countries in a variety of sports still have to deal with hooliganism and from a number of matches I've seen this year, it still exists in the English league as well. While I certainly agree that Holliganism is not as intense as it has been in years past, to single out a certain country as a basin for Hooliganism and to imply that another is free of it is very unfair in my opinion.--Cini Duel 13:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Arwel was refering to a specific spate of hooliganism at Italian league matches in April this year. Please look at the date of messages that you are replying to. Pcb21 Pete 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, that comment was written immediately after the AC Milan - Inter Champions' League match, which was abandoned because of hooliganism, also not forgetting that AS Roma are playing this season's European home matches in an empty stadium because of the incident last year when a referee was injured. -- Arwel (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The overview tells us that 7,000,000 fans were injured. Seven million is about a tenth of the UK population. It might be just a tad too high. This site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/28/newsid_2531000/2531015.stm) put the figure at 170 which is inherently more sane. I doubt that 7 million people could fit into any football stadium let alone Sheffield Wednesday's terraces. Does anyone have a source on this 7,000,000 figure? Empty Book 17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate page for connection with sun newspaper?

It was odd to come here looking for information on the Hillsborough disaster to find that more than half of the article is about an article printed by the Sun newspaper. The Sun had no part in the disaster itself, and the disaster of its article is surely secondary. 213.48.36.65 21:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

We still haven't got the balance right just yet I agree, but it has been improving. I am sure a spin-off article would be that great. Much better to continue to expand the main body more - and perhaps tighten the Sun section a little? Pcb21 Pete 22:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Live tv?

Is the comment "Graphic footage of the disaster was available because the match was being recorded for later broadcast " true? IIRC, the match was broadcast live - ISTR watching the game, and the unfolding events. Guinness

IIRC the game was being recorded for Match of the Day to be shown later that day; but as the tragic events began to unfold, the pictures were broadcast live. I know for certain that this happend with the Bradford City disaster, and I'm pretty sure it happend here too. Jooler 13:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't argue with you, 'cus my own memory is a bit flakey, but when was the last time a Cup semi-final wasn't shown live on TV? I do however vaguely recall the commentator saying something along the lines like "there appears to be some sort of commotion at one end of the pitch." Guinness 16:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The Grandstand clip in McGovern's Hillsborough drama shows them only going to the ground once they get news of the problems. "Just before we go to the snooker, I'm going to lead you to Gerald Sinstadt [sp?] at Hillsborough...Gerald what's happening?") The next shot is a static 'scoreline' graphic -- then it cuts to a long shot of the stand chaos. The JPS 16:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
but when was the last time a Cup semi-final wasn't shown live on TV - um.. probably sometime shortly after 1988. It was Sky TV that introduced the concept of showing live football matches for games other than the FA Cup or League Cup Finals, Charity Shield matches or major Internationals. Jooler 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Not true - both the BBC and ITV showed live first division games at various times during the 80s - alternating between Friday evenings and Sunday afternoons. And the FIRST time that FA cup semi finals were shown live on TV was in 1990 - Man Utd v Oldham and Liverpool v Crystal Palace.68.193.148.80 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
In line with their regulatory codes, the broadcasters did not show identifiable individuals involved in acute suffering, but did show a long shot of the commotion and gfootage of the reactions of those not directly involved in the disaster. see the judgment of the House of Lords in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, that's where I found this. Rainbowfanclub 14:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Police statements altered

The Sunday Telegraph revealed that police statements were altered significantly prior to submission to the inquiry. I wonder if this is worth a mention here. Eiler7 11:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Spectator editorial

I suggest that this article could do with an addition referring to The Spectator's controversial editorial that described Liverpool as "wallowing in victim status" after the murder in Iraq of Liverpudlian hostage Ken Bigley: the editorial also blamed drunken Liverpool fans for contributing to the Hillsborough disaster (see [1]). 155.232.250.19 15:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, but maybe then you should also mention other newspapers like The Observer for writing "..accords perfectly with the Liverpudlianisation of Britain... no-holds-barred self-pity dressed as grief, self-congratulatory sentimentalism, an affirmation of itself through the appropriation of cosmetic Celtism". 5 October 1997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2006

Delaying kick-offs

One of the outcomes of the reports into the disaster was that kick-offs are delayed if fans are late arriving at the ground. Not sure if this should be included (or where).

Wasn't that in the Taylor report? If so it would be better to add it there. Dan1980 14:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

New Images

Hi all, I just uploaded some new photos that are relevant to this article,
File:The kop1989.jpg File:Shankly gates1989.jpg
They were taken after the Hillsborough Memorial at Anfield in 1989, and although perhaps not the greatest quality, I think they show a lot of the emotion surrounding the tragedy. Seeing as I've never edited this page, and there's already a fair few photos here, I thought it best to display them here first so others can voice their opinions, cheers, aLii 00:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mirror wrote: Shocking news yesterday, when a Liverpool Fc Vs Nottingham Forest Fc game turned into the worst disaster. Outside of the Leaping stadium, allocated to the Liverpool fans, many fans was getting frustrated that the game had already started which cause 95 fans to death and many more hurt. Pc Marshal had this to say, ‘The fans were getting out of order we was left with no other choice but to open the gates. The game had just kicked of as we was doing so, which made the fans within the ground to cheer. Many other fans started to panic thinking that someone had scored, so they started to push through.’ Within the stadium ground there was high steel fencing, which was the main problem why so many fans died. Being pushed up to the high steel fencing, causing suffocation to happen. An unnamed eye witness, cried out these words, ‘I tried to reach down to help them out. Many of us did, but we wasn’t strong enough. Someone next to me, tried to pull a man up, but instead he feel to his death.’ She also had this to say, ‘

Removed it - don't feel it's connected with Hillsborough - yes it involves Liverpool too, but very different circumstances led to the disaster in both cases. Porterjoh 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenslade references (11 and 12)

How does an article talking about Sun price cuts in 2006 which tangentially mentions Hillsborough demonstrate any of the things that it's supposed to in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.190.39 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good article, although IMHO it could use a longer lead; also, I think it should say something about how this incident compares to other sports disasters. --ChaChaFut 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the "all stadiums were converted to all-seater following the disaster" managed to remain in this article. It was clearly written by someone who does not follow football. Nicander 10:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

interesting

this site is the most interesting 1 out of them all what did the forest fans do did they try and help.connor age 11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.110.20 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

This is a VERY biased article. You can't believe everything you read.

Very astute observation, and more peritinent to the Sun, rather than Wikipedia or the Taylor Report. Lion King 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

VERY good point. The article seems to outright dismiss that Pool fans did rob the dead and urinate of help, seeing the disgusting events first hand I can tell you the Sun got things spot on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.53.12 (talk • contribs)

What a liar, and a total scumbag you are. No police or other emergency services workers ever came forward to say they had been attacked or abused. No families of the victims ever reported missing valuables. Even a police investigation following the disaster found no evidence for fans mugging the dead. No one ever came forward to say they witnessed urination on, or abuse of the dead. Provide evidence of your allegations (other that the lie that you where there), or shut up. 86.138.54.55 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't there, it's a troll - don't feed it :) Lion King 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because no police publicly backed up The Sun's story doesn't mean it wasn't true. They would have been afraid of violence from the public if they said anything. (Huey45 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC))
So if a newspaper reported that a shop was robbed, but the shopkeeper says he wasn't robbed, and the seven people in his shop at the time also say no robbery took place this means the newspaper story is still true? NO ONE from the police, or the thousands of other people at the game ever reported anything like the sun said happen. Are you some kind of moron or what? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.136.249 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The whole article comes across as biased. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but it gives the impression that the Liverpool fans were blameless. A link to the Heysel disaster might also be appropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.30.108 (talk • contribs)

It gives the impression that the Liverpool fans were blameless, because the Liverpool fans Were Blameless. To suggest otherwise, is preposterous. And why would a link to Heysel be appropriate? I think I know where your'e going with this, so let me give you some advice - don't even think about it, OK? Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't preposterous, an encyclopedic entry should have all the info on various factors that contributed, even if they are only rumours (as long as there are cites and are marked as such). For instance people entering the ground without tickets was a factor (just google hillsborough "without tickets" for any number of cites) and although never officially substantiated there was a a suspician that intoxication was a factor. The fact you "think you know where he's going with this" is enough to confirm that these rumours and allegations are widespread. Also, your wording of that last sentence comes off as somewhat threatening, do not use language that may inflame an argument please. Abigsmurf 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't warn me, do I make myself clear? ABIGFIREMAN
Way to miss my point about using threatening language on what should be an academic resource! Abigsmurf 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems like Abigsmurf has problems with points of view. He has been warned about it on his own page. egde 14:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
and judging by your talk page you seem to be friends with [[User:Vera, Chuck & Dave|User:Vera, Chuck & Dave]. Again this talk page is about discussing how to make this article better and presenting all sides of the story is the best way to do that. For a Liverpool fan to threaten people wanting to post information regarding facts that are uncomfortable for him and then get a friend to back him up is not in the best interests of readers wanting an accurate resource. Abigsmurf 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well how about me then? I'm not "friends" with either of these users. Firstly, I would say that the comment: "Don't warn me do I make myself clear"? seems to be a very firm request, not a threat and under the circumstances a justifiable one. Secondly, you need to read the Taylor Report. Thirdly, before wanting to add any "suspicions of intoxicatation" and "ticketless fans entering the ground" next time you "Google" - look at where this so called inorfmation is coming from and see if it meets WP:Reliable Sources. Lastly, there was only one body responsible for the Hillsborough disaster and that was THE POLICE, who lied, commited perjury, destroyed and withheld evidence, and fed lies to the gutter press who were only too pleased to spew them out. Lion King 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Verifiability may also help Lion King
I think this article is now as close to a NPOV as it's going to be possible to get. There are too many editors here with an emotional investment against any accusations regarding the Liverpool fans for a fully NPOV to be practical. At least the accusations are mentioned - that seems sufficient. Trewornan 17:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is terribly biased so as to completely absolve the moronic soccer hooligans who are obviously at fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Another clueless yank giving their unwanted opinion on a subject that they clearly know nothing about. Read the evidence, the fans were NOT to blame 78.148.138.232 (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If it helps I've just read the article as it stands; I might be accused of several biases - I don't like football, I am a police officer, and am an ex-Sheffield man. I'm also pretty scathing about blame culture, and groups who seek 'justice' when official reports don't favour their own points of view, and who seek to scapegoat both individuals and institutions for complex disasters. However as far as NPOV goes - I think this article has it about right actually which I found both refreshing and surprising. I wish some of the talk contributors could rise to the same standard though. I would think that the next update would be when (or if?) all the classified documents relating to the disaster are released, and whether that increases our understanding of what happened. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The truth

I checked the "Hillsborough without tickets" sites, and they were mostly about Athens, and not Hillsborough. I will put the following quote here and a web page reference, which deals with the Hillsborough match:

"To-camera, Trevor reports an ambulanceman's recollection that preventable deaths were caused by lack of medical equipment and the failure to let ambulances onto the pitch. There follows a police cover-up. Traumatised officers are warned to not put anything in their notebooks, and although some officers ignore this, one later changes his statement during a court case after a call from a pathologist involved in the case.

Relatives who have just identified bodies are asked [by the police] whether their loved ones had been drinking or had arrived without tickets. This becomes the constantly repeated defence by police, despite being dismissed by the official Taylor inquiry, which squarely blames police failure. As The Sun newspaper prints lies - which are seen to come from senior police briefings - about Liverpool fans stealing from and urinating on the dead the relatives are faced with not only burying their loved ones but also having to defend their reputations.

The families try legal action to make South Yorkshire police accountable for their negligence, but are disappointed because of legal points, such as the dismissal of deaths after 3.15pm after the disputed evidence of a pathologist, the absence of police video evidence, and the swaying of juries by repeated allegations about the dead." Hillsborough (1996)

This is the truth. I rest my case. egde 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What I feel everyone has missed is that the fans that died were most likely at the front of the enclosure - having got there early and in good time. The difficulty with any suggestion that the fans played some part in the disaster is difficult for many to stomach simply becuase the fans that died were wholly innocent in this. It is also a problem that due to the tribal nature of football this is also seen as an attach on Liverpool fans. My own personal experience from those times is that football fans in large crowds could behave in a manner that put others at risk - I recall leaving a game and a number of fans behind me linking arms and surging forward delibaretely creating some form of crowd surge. In my view crowd behaviour (often affected by alcohol) will have been a factor in this disaster. THIS HOWEVER WAS NOT A LIVERPOOL ISSUE it was a football issue. Hillsborough could probably occurred to any other of the big clubs and a natural desire to avoid any criticism that could be seen as criticism of the dead should not prevent a proper analysis. It is not relevant whether the fans that died had tickets or not or were or were not drunk. The relevant question is whether those arriving close to kick off were drunk or had tickets or behaved appropriately. In considering the police's actions we need to consider whether this was (a) mistake - just poor decisions in possibly a difficult situation created by the late arrival of fans, (b) reckless or malicious - and in these latter to circumstances should we not also examine the behaviour of fans towards police over the years which may have created the atmosphere in which such view could flourish - whether or not such an atmosphere is acceptable 86.136.141.204 (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cites

There are hardly any cites in this entire page. Please put references in. And to say Liverpool fans were entirely blameless is one of the most blinkered things I have ever heard. 62.25.109.195 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ALOL! I've seen it all now! An "editor" who has been repeatedly warned and blocked for vandalism, requesting references! Take your time and read the article, read the Taylor Report and you will discover that the Liverpool fans were completely exonerated - the only people who want to perpetuate this nonsense is the gutter scum press and it's faithful "readership" made up of Tit loving Mummy's boys with learing difficulties. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why oh why does some scumbag keep changing the cause to human stampede when it wasnt, it was fault of the poor policing and a old inadequate ground, also the FA and Sheff Wed are at fault. and why as the ability to edit been removed, no doubt down a manc scumbag, please get it changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.14.66 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

DVD?

"Following The Sun's report, the newspaper was boycotted by most newsagents in Liverpool, with many refusing to stock the tabloid and large numbers of readers cancelling orders and refusing to buy from shops which did stock the newspaper. The Hillsborough Justice Campaign also organised a national boycott which was less successful, but certainly hit the paper's sales as refected by a constant drop in price and free soft porn DVD offers.[6]"

erm, they wouldn't have had DVDs back then. Either this is a mistake for VHS or the writer is trying to imply that the Sun is STILL suffering the effects of that campaign and that is why they produce such DVD offers which would be hard to believe given that the sun is the UK's most popular national newspaper

erm, yes they are still suffering the effects [2] and the reference to DVD's reflects the present day format, of course there weren't DVD's in '89, it was Free "Magazines, followed by video and anything else that would retain the images of Soft porn. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war about Man Utd/Sunderland game

There currently appears to an edit war going on concerning a minute's silence. Of course, this should be cited, but I guess it doesn't violate WP:BLP. On the other hand, in the overall scheme of things, is it notable enough for inclusion? It would be good if the two editors involved could discuss the issue here, as 3RR is about to be breached. The JPStalk to me 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing anything with anyone that refers to my edits as vandalism, I've only ever requested that the user in question be civil and allow time for a source to be provided - is that really to much to ask for? Thanks, Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there was a WP:AGF problem in some of the edit summaries. Still, WP:TEA. It's not harmful enough to warrant an immediate removal (tho' if I were a Man Utd fan I may feel differently: normally I'm up for anti Man-U bias, but I've got my admin hat on atm.). The JPStalk to me 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

New grounds?

It says on the article that in conjunction with the Taylor Report that the last 'new ground' built with standing was Chester City, this isn't true as in recent years Burton Albion, Dartford FC & Northwich Victoria have all built new grounds with standing.

It should be amended to be more specific or removed altogether I think. Alix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozzer cufc (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 December 2007

WOOT Go Dartford! Lol.
Anyway, I believe the Taylor's report was mainly on all-seater stadiums? Conay (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify?

  • Part of the lead section reads, "...resulted in the conversion of many football stadiums in the United Kingdom to all-seater". The term 'all-seater' is not familiar to me as an American, non-football fan. I think the lead section needs to be comprensible to someone new to the topic, like me. Can you find some way to clarify the meaning of this term? ike9898 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "All-seater" means that all customers have a seat to sit on and none need to stand. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Pogues album dedication

Can someone please check the wording of the dedication on the Pogues album? As it was released in 1989, the number of people who lost their lives couldn't have been higher than 95. Dupont Circle (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sun/Kelvin McKensie section

This section appears to have been chopped and changed making some parts make little sense, the protest in January 2007 was related to McKensie repudiating his apology and reiterating that the article was true but now this section isn't in chronological order the reasons for the protests aren't made clear.--Sully (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing Names

Listening to the moving ceremony I noticed some of the victims' names are missing from this article, at the bottom of both columns, it would be good if anyone with the information could add them. Seadog365 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This story truely broke my heart! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.230.82 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Petition...

As much as that petition is admirable, this is not the place for it, as it is unencyclopedic. Sorry. However, if it can re-added in a way that is acceptable for Wikipedia, it will be OK.Malpass93 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ground vice Grounds

In the following sentence:

"BBC Television's cameras were on the ground to record the match for their..."

If the correct usage is:

"BBC Television's cameras were at the ground to record the match for their..."

Should ground have an s added making the sentence:

BBC Television's cameras were at the grounds to record the match for their..."Coradon (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2009 (utc)

Better photographs needed

The photos on this page are all hopeless. They're too small to see a decent amount of detail. The one entitled "Hillsborough_disaster.jpg" is particularly useless since the crushing can't even be seen; just a bunch of people invading the field. (Huey45 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

The difficulty is finding images that are free of copyright. Most available images are copyrighted by various newspapers or television organisations. Understandably, most people who were close enough to take photographs that would display the gory detail you desire, were too busy escaping death to take any pictures. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see his point. Images with a higher definition would be preferable, the current ones aren't overly illustrative. Surely so long as the definition is reduced from the original and its not quite the full portion then we are within the letter of the rules. We might be able to get better images and remain within fair-use rules. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The vandalism seems to be getting worse and worse for this article. Looking through the log, almost every change is either vandalism or removal of vandalism. Can someone familiar with the Wikipedia procedures get this article protected from the trouble-makers? It's outrageous. (Huey45 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Article name

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Hillsborough Disaster → Hillsborough disaster —

  • Comment Perhaps you can point me to the listing in the UK Official Disaster Naming Directory that shows me the official name? What, there is no such list? </sarc> Of course, there is no official name, only the name attached to the event by convention. If you can find a source stating that there is an official name, produce it. There is no evidence provided that this same convention insists on capitalising the word "disaster" either - indeed the only evidence provided above appears to show that the convention is to leave the word "disaster" in lower case. Rather than impugning everyone else's motives and feigning outrage, how about actually tracking down some evidence to support the claims you have made above. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the sarcasm, always helpful. For the record, I'm not "impugning" anyone's motives (I was legitimately surprised by your comment above, because, to me at least, "convention" leads to things like official names) nor am I "feigning outrage" but expressing real frustration that the Oppose points above are being bulldozed over before being discussed. In your emotional response above, I see you have still not addressed said points (but that's partly my fault for being a bit snarky. Sorry.) What evidence would you like me to procure? Like I said before, I'm not interested in a consensus of capitalization on the web, but the proper capitalization for an established event name. Wikkitywack (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikkitywack, hi. I read Mattinbgn's point above, sarcasm aside, as the following: There is no "official name" attached to the event because there is no "official" body responsible for naming events. Mattinbgn can correct me if I'm wrong. The weight of the disagreement seems to be on the word "official". I think that's the "evidence" he's (facetiously?) asking you to procure, i.e., I think he's implying that there cannot be evidence that this disaster has some official name, because disasters (unlike, say, Hurricanes) don't have "official" names.

      I'm sympathetic to your desire, Wikkitywack, that the actual issue be hashed out, rather than people simply citing precedent. However, I think the points have been addressed here. I believe that Arichnad's point below answers the grammatical question; "Hillsborough disaster" does not necessarily imply that it is a type of disaster. A more natural reading is that it's a case of noun-as-adjective: "which disaster?" "the Hillsborough disaster."

      As you say above, "'convention plays a very important role in shaping the titles of events." In this case, the convention seems to be that it's called the "Hillsborough disaster", with a small 'd'. We're either going to follow the rules of English in the abstract, or else we'll be guided by common usage. We can't have it both ways, where common usage makes a name "official", but then rules of grammar take over and determine that, because of its official-ness, we're therefore going to diverge from common use, the very thing that's supposed to have made it official!

      In short, I support the move to Hillsborough disaster. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Support A simple Google search indicates it's much more common to use the lowercase d. Propaniac (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Most people would spell it with lowercase 'd' and most websites have it in lowercase.
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of the deceased

This is an encyclopedia entry not a memorial. The list of deceased is impertinent and should be removed. Any objections? Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would object. This is indeed a encyclopedia entry about the disaster and a list of victims included does not necessarily constitute a memorial. Due to the unique circumstances of the tragedy, with the high number of relatively young victims and the number of deceased being related to one another, a list showing the number of the victims can help the reader identify the horrific nature of the disaster and it would help them fully understand why many of these surivors would have PTSD and terrible memories. Unfortunately I had to really do more research outside of Wikipedia to understand the gravity of the disaster because the article didn't truly convey the tragedy to me and Im sure other readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.82.120 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Image issues

Flowers are laid in memory of the dead at the Hillsborough memorial at Anfield.

For some reason this image in the permanent memorials section of the article refuses to appear, despite the markup being exactly the same as the other image included in that section. It does render properly however when previewing edits. I've commented it out for now until someone more competent with markup than I am can work out where it's wrong. - Chrism would like to hear from you 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved - File:.... is sometimes the way to go - Youreallycan 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

chief superintendent Brian Mole

There needs to be section on the replacement of chief superintendent Brian Mole, who was the police commander at Hillsborough for a number of years, 21 days before the disaster.

Having replaced an extremely experienced match commander with essentially a novice, is a contributory factor and Phil Scraton's book notes some reasons for this - we need another source

Abz zeus (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Advertising hoardings" or advertising boardings?

In the second paragraph it says "To carry the injured, supporters tore down advertising hoardings ..." Is "boardings" meant instead? I'm from the other side of the pond and know you Brits have some funny words for things. ;-)

In one of the later paragraphs it says "advertising boards." Is "boardings" a word? Ileanadu (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoardings would be correct usage. Keith D (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


This needs a tag to indicate it is in the news

This topic is in the news at present (September 2012). Shouldn't there be a tag heading the article to indicate that it it is in the news? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That tag is generally reserved for articles which are posted on the Main Page's In the news section. There is currently a discussion about Hillsborough here. —WFC— FL wishlist 10:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Before the disaster

I have removed reference to the Heysel Stadium Disaster from this section, though it's necessary to explain the reason why, to avoid accusation of censorship. According to The Roots of Football Hooliganism (Routledge) and Hooligans (Milo Books), the first fences were erected in 1974. Manchester United was relegated and Red Army hooligans travelled around the country causing mayhem, stabbing opposing fans, invading the pitch and halting play. Author Dominic Sandbrook, in his book State of Emergency, writes:

"Officials had been talking of installing steel fences for years, but hesitated because of safety, cost and image concerns. Manchester United, though, had been ordered to install fences in the summer of 1974, and where they led others followed."

To be clear, almost every single football club attracted an undesirable element that would cause serious trouble both home and away. See List of hooligan firms. (Liverpool erected fences in 1978-1979 to stop fans from invading the playing field and swarming the players whenever they paraded a trophy.) In this context, it is potentially confusing that an event that occurred nine years later -- in 1985, conincidentally involving Liverpool fans -- should serve as the sole example of football hooliganism in English football. I do not believe this section requires specific examples of violence, in any case. It should be enough to explain that hooliganism was a growing concern in the early 1970s and that English clubs took a variety of measures to contain the problem, including the erection of fencing. — ThePowerofX 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


I think that Heysel is relevant in setting the context for Hillsborough. Heysel had happened only four years earlier and English clubs were still banned from Europe at the time of Hillsborough. The (non-football) public had a negative opinion football fans generally but, due to Heysel, of Liverpool supporters specifically. This meant that the public was more inclined to believe the lies put out by the police, including that it was the fans who had caused the disaster. Even after the Taylor Report some people held on to the view that the fans were to blame.
If Forest had been given the Leppings Lane end and 96 Forest fans had died then, had the police put out the same lies, I think the public would have been more sceptical. So, while Heysel is not relevant to the Hillsborough disaster itself; it is relevant to the cover-up and the reaction of the public. I'm not sure where it would best fit into the article, though. Stanley Oliver (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
More accurately, Heysel is relevant in setting the context for Police deception and obfuscation. Yes, I agree entirely. Heysel was a pure act of thuggery. It was the final straw that saw all English clubs banned from competing in Europe. Therefore it was easy for senior officers to conflate two separate incidents and create a fictitious narrative in order to conceal simple individual failings. I think, given the weight of evidence now in the public domain, bolstered by countless reliable sources, this article requires a new section between The disaster and The Taylor inquiry that explicitly makes this point. Something along these lines:
The disaster
Police obfuscation
The Taylor inquiry
Lord Justice Taylor recognised how senior Police officers had attempted to control the message following the disaster, but I doubt he could have imagined the amount of evidence that was withheld from his enquiry — ThePowerofX 11:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Hillsborough Independent Panel article

This discussion is continued from Talk:Hillsborough Independent Panel#Redirect.
Hmm I think I would feel more comfortable if it were to go to AfD as has been suggested in order to gain broader consensus in light of the dispute. Of course if there is a sudden influx of people all saying we should merge and redirect then that is clearly not necessary. Either way thats just my thoughts, but not having been involved the dispute I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. --wintonian talk 01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge, preferably Speedy Merge given the significant number of responses on the Hillsborough Independent Panel talk page. The Panel page says nothing that should not be said here; the only content actually specific to the panel on that page is the list of names of the participants. VQuakr (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Can I just make the point that the list of participants is incorporated into the prose in this article (second paragraph of the independent panel section). It is formatted uniquely in the forked article, but is not new information. —WFC— FL wishlist 08:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect for the following reasons:
    • Unanimous consensus among unblocked editors (myself, Tagishsimon, wintonian, VQuakr, Struway2, Peridon and Lemonade51) that the page should redirect to the relevant section here.
    • The fact that DePiep's most recent removal of the redirect was a breach of 3RR, which resulted in a 48 hour block for edit-warring, with a second admin stating that the only reason he did not block is because he considered himself involved with the user
      • I repeat: the status quo of two articles has been achieved through edit-warring which resulted in a block. Without this edit-warring, the page would currently redirect to this article.
    • Hillsborough Independent Panel is copyvio, as it fails to comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Licence (attribution).
    • Even after the expansion, Hillsborough Independent Panel is a near-exact fork of the appropriate section in this article. Don't let the section headers fool you: the prose itself was a direct port. And don't let the list of names at the bottom fool you: these names were already included in the prose – no new information is communicated. —WFC— FL wishlist 07:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the basis for the copyvio claim? Insufficient attribution of copying with Wikipedia can be mitigated without deletion, and Depiep provided the source page in a rough sort of way. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it's easily resolved, but lack of attributions is one of many reasons I have given above for a speedy redirect. —WFC— FL wishlist 08:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I can note that the original page did not have a link tot the source [3]. Apart from not sourced, it was a great encyclopedic section. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tottenham near tragedy

["...resulting in 38 casualties, many of them serious."]

This is a quote from this section. The sentence apparently classifies some of the casualties as less than "serious" which I think is inappropriate. Unless someone can root out (and clarify to show) some other valid meaning, I move that ", many of them serious" be removed. Dice 001 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This sentence refers to broken limbs. Lord Taylor wrote of the Tottenham and Wolverhampton incident in 1981:
"Those being crushed called for the perimeter gates to be opened onto the track. There was no immediate reaction, according to Mr Vaux who was there, but fortunately a police Inspector gave instructions and the gates were then opened. About 250 came out onto the track. There were broken arms, legs and ribs and 38 were treated either in hospital or by the St John Ambulance Brigade. It is clear from the documents (a) that the turnstile readings showed the capacity figure of 10,100 had been exceeded by over 400 (b) that the police shut off further access to the terraces because of crushing, and (c) the police view after the event was that the capacity figure of 10,100 in the Safety Certificate was too high. This latter view was communicated to the Club by the Chief Superintendent then in command of F Division but it was not pursued."
We can describe the injuries sustained, rather than saying "many of them serious". — ThePowerofX 10:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Accounts from Tottenham fans are scarily familiar:
"Women and children were being crushed. I am tall and able to take care of myself, but I felt my ribs cracking. Not until 3.10 did the police become aware of the dangerous situation and begin letting people on to the touch-line."
Another:
"I can remember clearly people pleading with the police to open the gate at the front of the pitch to relieve the crush but there was obviously no one senior to make the decision to allow the gate to be opened. Fans started to scream, throw and spit at the police in an attempt to get the gate opened. Finally the gate was opened but then because the opening was higher than the floor people couldnt raise their knees to get out of the opening because of the crush so people were having to be pulled out from pitch side."
Video of the incident here and some written accounts here. — ThePowerofX 13:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
While that may add to the article independently of my concern, my point is that the sentence structure implies that many (but not all) of the casualties were serious. Casualties meaning serious injury or death, this seems inappropriate, especially since to most (many) the word means only (or at least implies primarily) fatalities/deaths, which I am uncomfortable grading in seriousness. Dice 001 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
How about ...resulting in 38 injuries, many of them serious? — ThePowerofX 13:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
To avoid value judgements, how about ....resulting in 38 injuries, including broken arms, legs and ribs. Keeps it factual as referenced above and arguably provides more impact as to the seriousness of the injuries. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. — ThePowerofX 16:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing from this article?

Unless I'm missing this, the article currently doesn't convey anything at all about the family's campaign; does not explain why the Stuart-Smith scrutiny or the HIP were demanded or required. Oh, sorry - we say in HIP: "In the years after the disaster there was a feeling that the full facts were not in the public domain and a suspicion that some facts were deliberately covered up. The Hillsborough Family Support Group, led by Trevor Hicks, campaigned for the release of all relevant documents." I tend to think we should be saying more, sooner, about the campaign, probably by way of a mention in the lead; and campaign reactions to Taylor, the inquests, Stuart-Smith, and HIP.

Next I think missing from HIP is discussion of consequences and reactions - not least SYP thinking about referring themselves to the IPPC; and the media consensus that new inquests are required, and that a number of lines of prosecution exist.

Finally, I think the article needs additional material on the political & cultural context, particularly the thread between the Tories and SYP post the miner's strike. There are plenty of RS for a discussion of this.

I hope to join in & add some of this, but for now am as interested in identifying perceived gaps. (Oh, and removal of Cracker: good) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you entirely. A lot more can be said of the HIP. I plan to read their report shortly (wish to add one additional sub section regarding poor signage [re Taylor] before proceeding) so I can help out with this. A lot more can be said about Police misdirection and obfuscation. Possibly an entire section given the amount of reliable sources available. Not sure where to place it, though. — ThePowerofX 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

New information source

Thanks. You'll see we already have a section on the new report, and links to the report and the HIP website. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see the Hillsborough Independent Panel didn't claim that there hads been "strenuous attempts" by the police to deflect blame onto the plans. This would be consistent with the HIP's policy of providing information and letting others draw conclusions. I have therefore deleted a reference to this from the Article. However the "strenuous attempts" claim does seem to have been widely reported in the media so I could be wrong. Bur for the moment I think it should be excluded - there's a lynch mob atmosphere already.Elthamboy (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Sun on 13/9/12

Image:The_Sun_Hillsborough_Real_Truth_headline_130912.jpg I noticed that that day's Sun had a cover recalling 'The Truth', and I thought it might be useful for inclusion in the article. I invite anyone who wishes to do so to clean it up, edit out my shoes and reduce the resolution to something reasonable. --AdamM (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Only months later do I see the thumbnail was removed per non-free content usage policy, and then the image itself was deleted for being a non-free orphan. Well that's just lovely. If anyone still wants it leave me a message on my talk page. --AdamM (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I have accidentally overcooked the lead, due to not seeing the previous expansion a few minutes earlier. Any ideas on how to consolidate it? There are some important elements in both paragraphs. While mindful of POV, what I would hope is that the final paragraph of the lead can convey the widespread consensus on the version of events that came out today, from the families to the people mentioned in the paragraph I added. —WFC— FL wishlist 19:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to tighten it up a little. Is this what you meant?

Also, wanted to clarify something. The mentions the 96 deaths, and then it says "Another 766 persons were injured. All of those were fans of Liverpool Football Club." Does this mean that of the 96 deaths some were fans of the other team while the 766 injured were Liverpool fans? Does that mean there were no police or stadium officials injured? It also implies that among the dead were individuals other than Liverpool Football Club fans. Ileanadu (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I know little about this disaster and and came here to learn about it but it would be very odd if, of 766 injured people, all were liverpool fans and yet it the 96 deaths included non-liverpool fans. The injuries and deaths would have had similar causes and in British Football stadia it is normal to keep many stands for the exclusive use of fans of just one club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.76.45 (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BBC Panorama - 20 May 2013 additions

The BBC Panorama "Hillsborough - How They Buried the Truth" piece has just been broadcast.

Likely many more corrections for the article.

-- 21:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefishy (talk • contribs)

Universal English?

This article utilizes British English in a way that makes it difficult to understand from a non-British background. The true meaning of the disaster and what happened is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.99.105 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

May be you could give a couple of examples. Keith D (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Recentism in the lead

I have just read the article and there appears to be quite a lot of recentism (WP:RECENT) in the lead. It appears as if, as the story has developed over the past few years, this information has gradually accumulated in the lead. The reason I noticed it is that we allocate 324 words for the disaster itself (what the article should be mainly about), 46 words on the official inquiry and the significant changes that resulted because of it, but 229 words solely about events in the past few years. I understand that it is natural to want to put this in, but we must remember that the lead is only supposed to summarise the overall events and it is not helpful to have a lopsided lead. As an example, is the long sentence containing Andy Burnham really needed? I have not made any changes because I know this is a potentially controversial topic. I thought I would copy here a suggested version of the final three paragraphs. Please let me know what you think. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1990 official inquiry into the disaster, the Taylor Report, concluded that "the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control." The findings of the report resulted in the elimination of standing terraces at all major football stadiums in England, Wales and Scotland.

After the release of previously unavailable documents, the Hillsborough Independent Panel concluded that no Liverpool fans were responsible for the deaths, and that attempts had been made by the authorities to conceal what happened, including the alteration by police of statements relating to the disaster. The facts in the report prompted apologies from Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, David Crompton, amongst others, for their organisations' respective roles. The Panel concluded that up to nearly half of the fatalities might have been avoided had they received prompt medical treatment. The report revealed "multiple failures" by other emergency services and public bodies that contributed to the death toll. In response to the report, a new inquest was granted in the High Court with the possibility of overturning the original verdicts of accidental death.

By the way, the end of the current final sentence seems a bit inappropriate in tone: 'On 19 December 2012, a new inquest was granted in the High Court, to the relief of the families and friends of the Hillsborough deceased.' I shall not make any changes until I hear back from you. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some criminal charges against the organisers for the un-timly deaths of 96 true liverpool fans? Rob Kemp life long liverpool supporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.191.4 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 Inquest

NB This was originally posted, by a different editor, under Talk:Hillsborough disaster#Missing from this article? but I'm moving it to its own section so it doesn't get lost. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Currently the article does not convey the fact that a new Inquest into the Hillsboroguh Fans' deaths has begun.

Changes to the article are likely to be actually controversial or be seen to be controversial for the next year or so, regardless of source. New facts may emerge into the public domain as a alarge amount of documentation has been made available to the Coroner.

For this reason, Wikipedia Editors might be best seeking to lock editing for the duration and to seek expertise regarding how to edit without interfering with the Inquest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.44.174 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The above is probably one of many reasons why this article should be locked for editing, given the topic immediately above this one. This article has already been raised at WP:AN. Lets defer to the admins common sense and judgement for the time being Badanagram (attempt) 17:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles relating to high-profile court cases are not normally protected - see WP:PROTECT for policy. This is partly because this a private website based in the USA; the US and UK rules on freedom of speech during court cases are rather different and Wikipedia - like other organisations - doesn't take kindly to people outside the US trying to apply their rules to it. NebY (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Also, there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who are quick to remove material they see as inappropriate and 185 editors have this article on their watchlist. This can work very well - see above for how quickly the offensive material was removed from this article - so I expect the default will be to carry on as normal unless problems arise. If they do, there's a whole range of measures that include blocking particular editors from Wikipedia or barring brand new or unregistered editors. NebY (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


way to keep it up-to-date

"The IPCC is to also expected to launch a public appeal for more witnesses to come forward in the autumn of 2013." 68.183.43.72 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Elephant in the Room

Off topic discussion of the ticket myth
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Questioned answered in detail, no need for further discussion. Question violates WP:TALK

QUESTION. Was this match an all ticket affair ? If so, how many of the 96 had tickets ?? If they did have tickets - were they purchased from reputable retailers ???

The great unknown about this disaster be the matter of tickets - if only those supporters who had purchased legitimate tickets through reputable outlets had turned up on the day - the odds are this disaster would never have happened.

Speaking as a Scouser - this may sound traitorous to some, but, it be the one big question that has never been answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.73.212 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reads the article - Hillsborough_disaster#Build-up states "On match day, radio and television advised fans without tickets not to attend". Now get down from your trollbox. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Since when did footy fans take advice ? Since when did footy fans understand instructions ?? Since when were footy fans level-headed ???
To the commenter above, Wikipedia doesn't like people continuously reverting pages to make a point therefore an admin may decide to block you. Badanagram (attempt) 21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is fifth time this user has attempted to raise this (see history) in blatant breach of WP:TALK. I'm closing this down. Please do not reopen. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

From the last time, with detailed answers:

Was this match an all ticket game ? If so, how many of those who died did not have tickets ?? More to the point - how many of those who turned up on the day did so without tickets ??? Signed, Red Birdy Scouser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.70.133 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.73.5 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.197.0 (talk)

Off-topic and uncivil baiting here. You keep putting this back and logging your phone off and back on again to get a different IP, so you look like different people. Rather than edit-war, I'll respond. Even as far back as the Taylor Report the whole "ticketless" thing was shown to be a police myth used to smear the fans. From this article:
"The possibility of fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets was suggested as a contributing factor. South Yorkshire Police suggested the late arrival of fans amounted to a conspiracy to gain entry without tickets. However, analysis of the electronic monitoring system, Health and Safety Executive analysis, and eyewitness accounts showed that the total number of people who entered the Leppings Lane end was below the official capacity of the stand. Eye witness reports suggested that tickets were available on the day and tickets for the Leppings Lane end were on sale from Anfield until the day before. The report dismissed the conspiracy theory."
Also, from the summary of the independent panel report [4]:
"153. Consistent with Lord Justice Taylor's findings, the Panel found no evidence among the vast number of disclosed documents and many hours of video material to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans. There was no evidence that fans had conspired to arrive late at the stadium and force entry and no evidence that they stole from the dead and dying. Documents show that fans became frustrated by the inadequate response to the unfolding tragedy. The vast majority of fans on the pitch assisted in rescuing and evacuating the injured and the dead."
So, your questions are not "the elephant in the room", the situation has been exhaustively investigated and it is extremely likely that all the victims had tickets and that the vast majority of fans turned up with tickets. If a few did turn up without tickets, it has been established that this made no difference.
Now please do not post further unless you have a serious suggestion for improving the article and can provide suggestions based on reliable sources and not just inflammatory questions. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.224.5 (talk)
NB That autosign is a result of this edit [5] which restores the baiting questions for a fourth time (all IPs are registered to Hutchinson Telecom's 3G service, so the same user). I'll leave it to other editors to decide how to proceed, but I'm concerned that this editor is going against the intention of a talk page in order to be provocative and insensitive and has no interest in improving the article. See also their edit summaries, which definitely breach WP:CIVIL. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Police Witness Statements Altered - A Cover Up?

'The findings concluded that 164 witness statements had been altered. Of those statements, 116 were amended to remove or change negative comments about South Yorkshire Police.' It's worth reading the full report about these alterations. Much is made of them, but in reality they seem quite innocuous. Draft witness statements were collected from police officers present and then checked by the force's solicitors who in turn recommended that a significant number be changed in various, often small, ways. The reasons for the suggested changes varied, but included unprofessional language, subjective comments about both fans and fellow officers, and observations on things the officers had not actually seen. The idea seems to have arisen that these alterations meant that there was 'a police cover up', but the last investigation, which examined this question in detail, does not seem suport such a belief since all the changes were (a) suggested by the solicitors and (b) seem to have been logical ones having regard to the fact that the purpose of a witness statement is to record what one actually saw or experienced. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.111.107 (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The phrase you mention is a direct quote from the summary to the report ( http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/Section-1/summary/page-13/ ) and so is entirely appropriate to this article. Attempting an interpretation, as you have done, violates WP:NPOV. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


Indeed,and I certainly wouldn't wish to push any point of view: in fact I don't have a view. However using a single sentence in this way itself amounts to a POV-by-ommission since the full and detailed text about the alterations to the original draft statements reveals a more understandable and reasoned explanation that the simplistic 'police cover up' explanation which I fear is implied by the sentence when read in isolation. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.0.233 (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What you seem to be suggesting is outside the scope of an encyclopedia article, a phrase quoted from the summary of the report is entirely adequate to summarise what the report is saying (which is also how it is presented - as a conclusion of the report). Trying to make allowances for what people may infer from words that the authors of the report chose for their summary in order to show their conclusions is so far into original research that it'll never fly as an addition to that section. The principal of verifiablity is that readers can follow the links to sources and come to their own conclusions about them and that includes looking into the detail of a source that cannot be adequately covered by an encyclopedia article.
The only way I can see of getting the context you think this needs (and I have to say I don't agree) would be to create an article specifically about the changes to the statements, that can be linked to the section here. You'd have to be careful to summarise without interpretation and I think you could have difficulties with notability (ie it'll have to have been discussed extensively by third-party sources to justify its own article) but if want to give it a go then articles for creation would be the say to go.
Even if you think the extra context can be added to the existing section, there's not anything more to say unless you can suggest a wording for an addition.
Going forward, I think the new inquest, the IPCC investigation and any criminal prosecutions that follow will better evaluate the seriousness or otherwise of the changes. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead, again

The lead is too long. At seven long paragraphs before you reach the TOC, it needs to be trimmed a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Taking it down to a tiny single paragraph is laughably bad, please revert yourself or fix it immediately to be more appropriate. Seven paras is better than next-to-nothing until you can work out what you want there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Epic, please accept that this article is the result of considerable work on a very sensitive subject by a large number of editors who are aware of the wider issues, not least the repeated wounds that the families of the dead have suffered over the last 25 years and the increasing media attention and public sympathy they have received. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise and needs you to work in a collegiate manner, not to charge in tagging and restructuring without hesitation or consultation. NebY (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I apologize to all for being insensitive. I do hope that any issues get resolved quickly, though. And in response to TRM's edit summary, I'm not even going to bother "playing that game" (which is in fact a mindless squabble). The lead needs significant work; that's all that I'm going to say. --Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NebY. Also the Manual of Style does not set in stone an absolute limit on the number of paragraphs in the lead section. It says "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs". However, "ideally" does not mean that it must never contain five, six or even seven paragraphs under certain circumstances. If there has been a collaborative consensus built up over many years that a longer lead section is appropriate for the worst stadium-related disaster in British history and a tragedy that continues to make headlines 25 years after the event because of various wider issues and multiple failures that increased the death toll, then I see no reason why the lead section has to be strictly limited to four paragraphs for this article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's beyond obvious that the opening section is massively too long, and contains way too much detail. The opening paragraphs of any article are meant to be an engaging but brief summary of what the reader is going to find in the rest of the article - this one goes well beyond that, almost into direct duplication. Whoever decided this was the best thing to do for this article has made a grave mistake - the only thing a poor opening section like this does is make it more likely people who know nothing about the subject will simply not bother to read on, or worse, jump straight to a detailed section, which they then might not fully understand without the wider context. I know a lot about the disaster so didn't have to contend with any unknown terms or descriptions, but even I struggled to find the motivation or the will to keep wading through that opening. On my screen, it's a full three pages long - which is utterly ridiculous, and in no way justified by the complexity of this specific subject. Anyone who believes this really needs to be more than four paragraphs long, has probably lost all objectivity, and perhaps simply wants to breathlessly write the whole article up front, or is otherwise just not a very good writer. A good example is the very first line - "The Hillsborough disaster was an incident that occurred on" - what other types of disaster are there, that are not incidents? I'm not going to attempt to fix this because I know full well that the idea that Wikipedia works on calm and considered collaboration is a total myth - it's whoever shouts loudest or argues the longest that usually gets to decide what pages look like. I also can't be the only person who baulks at the prospect of dealing with people whose editorial decisions about what should and should not be in the opening are informed as much by sentiment and emotion than by objectivity or writing skill. Heaven forbid that we should offend the families of the victims by creating a professional quality piece of work on the disaster (which, if it's obective and truthful, and crucially encourages people to read the whole article in full, couldn't ever be anything but respectful). Gorton 984 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If you aren't at least going to suggest some changes then your criticisms are of very limited value and the passive aggressive tone is in no way helpful. If you really believe that Wikipedia doesn't work in general (and regardless of the specific circumstances of any article's editing process) then you're just letting off steam. If actually want to argue for a change then civility is key. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The irony of course is that while you were writing this complaint about my tone, I was drafting suggestions (see below). But no, civility is not key, it's not even very important - not if the goal is to actually write an article to a high standard. You either are interested in learning why this article is so poor, or you aren't - to that end it hardly makes a difference how politely you are told, unless you weren't all that interested in the first place. Gorton 984 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Having said that I wouldn't get involved, I will just say it's pretty clear how a subject like this could be easily summarised in just four paragraphs:

  • Para 1: Establish the basic facts - what/when/where/why
  • Para 2: Summarise the initial investigation/impact on football
  • Para 3: Explain the justice campaign/popular myths (most of which had already been officially found to be false)
  • Para 4: Summarise the recent events (HIP onwards)

An example of just how poor the current version is - assuming you even get to the end of the 5th paragraph, it mentions Kelvin McKenzie's apology - yet this is the first mention of the Sun in the entire opening. Maybe their role had been explained previously, but was removed, without the remover noticing they had left this follow up - but that's what tends to happen when openings are over-long. And if it was just never there at all, well, that's pretty poor all round, and casts doubt on quality of the entire article - after all, if you can't even ensure the opening makes sense? Given the length of the opening though, it's at the point where a reader might start to wonder if they did read what the Sun's role was, but by the time it took to get to the end of the 5th paragraph, had forgotten it. Gorton 984 (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to have a go at this then? You can either be bold and do it in the article itself or play about with it in your userspace and then either link to that draft or copy it here for comment. It's up to you, but I'd suggest working on a draft unless you're confident you can do a good rewrite in one or two edits. If you want to be bold then you can still make the edit without consulting here first, but it'll be based on your finished draft rather than done on the fly in the article itself. Even though your criticisms are a bit more detailed this time, suggestions for improvements or edits that improve things are much more valuable than simply a negative assessment of the current version.
The key, though is when it comes to other interacting with your changes and/or proposals, which is why I'm asking you to please read WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK and understand why following their guidelines makes sense on a collaboration. WP:BRD is also worth a look and I'd suggest that you read WP:OWN as you seem currently to assume that you are the sole arbiter of the quality of this article (to the extent of not feeling the need to be civil about it) and that could cause problems with collaboration (apologies if I have you all wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting based on what you have said so far). Lastly, please at least suspend your apparent cynicism about Wikipedia's methods until you have tried to improve this article and seen how that goes. And if it goes badly, there's always dispute resolution. And in terms of the reaction to the previous attempt to trim the lead, that started this section, please bear in mind that it shortened it to one paragraph.
I apologise if my last comment just came across as butting heads with you, that was not my intention. I still think things would run more smoothly if you could subsume your annoyance at the state of the lead into positive changes or suggestions; but I also think you're showing insight even in negatively critical mode. So I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with, or suggest about, the lead. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not claiming to be the sole arbiter of what's quality work, I was actually mostly explaining the logic and reason that underpins the principle that introductions to articles here should be at most, 4 paragraphs, something which has been agreed by the quality writers here, as I understood it. The theory of Wikipedia that you describe is great, and I could in theory with a single edit get this introduction into shape with just an hour of work. But I won't, as my cynicism toward Wikipedia stems directly from past experiences of what comes after that with other articles. It's unbelievable the sort of nonsense people will argue about here, and the lengths to which they will take such disagreement, especially in cases like this, where they are defending content that is very clearly miles away from good practice/quality writing, for reasons that can at best be described as irrelevant. So I can't really see it going any differently here. The ridiculous over-reaction to someone taking the extreme but not entirely detrimental step of using just the first para as the summary (which it is), moving the rest into 'synopsis', unless or until someone with some clue about what a decent 4 para introduction is meant to say/do could create one, shows me that it would be pointless to attempt anything here. I certainly don't want anyone accusing me of disrespecting the families, and I have absolutely no patience for the sort of people who think 7 paras is a reasonable exception to 4 based on nothing but an appeal to emotion and a (dubious looking) claim that the current version was the product of serious discussion. Gorton 984 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for a laugh, I've actually knocked up a new version. I think it's still slightly too long, but in my humble opinion, it meets the basic requirements of briefly summarising the main key points, while enticing the reader to read the full article, or at least go to the more detailed section they might now be interested in. It removes a lot of the irrelevancy and excessive detail in the current version, while introducing a whole bunch of majorly important aspects which had previously not been there. I make no apologies for any obvious gammar or spelling errors, or indeed any major ommissions or errors of fact - this is after all just a talk page copy that I've knocked up as much from memory as relying on this woefully incomplete article.

Hillsborough disaster
Date15 April 1989 (1989-04-15)
LocationHillsborough Stadium
Sheffield, England
Coordinates53°24′42″N 1°30′06″W / 53.41154°N 1.50154°W / 53.41154; -1.50154
Deaths96 (94 on 15 April)
Non-fatal injuries766
InquiriesTaylor Report (1990)
Hillsborough Independent Panel (2012)
CoronerDr. Stefan Popper

The Hillsborough disaster occurred on 15 April 1989 at Hillsborough football stadium, Sheffield, England; a human crush in the Leppings Lane end resulted in 96 deaths and 776 injuries. The majority were Liverpool supporters, whose team were playing Nottingham Forest in an FA Cup semi-final match at a neutral venue, home of Sheffield Wednesday. It was the worst stadium-related disaster in British history, and led to the elimination of standing terraces at all major football stadiums in England, Wales and Scotland.

The direct cause was the decision of South Yorkshire Police's Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield to open an exit gate in the minutes before kick-off, set for 3pm, to relieve over-crowding outside. Contributing to the resulting surge into the middle of the end was a poor stadium design and other crowd management failures. Escape from the resulting crush proved largely impossible due to the high fences designed to corall fans into pens. Initially dismissed as mere crowd trouble, the game was stopped after six minutes as the disaster unfolded on the pitch, on live television. In the immediate aftermath, as a result of police briefings to the Football Association (FA), the local press and local MP Irvine Patnick, the national press laid the blame on the Liverpool fans, who were described as drunk and largely ticketless, who rushed the turnstiles. The tabloid The Sun made several more damning allegations under the headline "The Truth".

Although the official investigation, the 1990 Taylor Report, debunked these accounts as myths and laid the blame largely on police failures, while also criticising Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield City Council and the FA for their roles, no prosecutions came about. The resulting bitterness felt by the families was aggravated by the subsequent inquest verdicts which recorded the deaths as accidental, and the persistence of the myths about the causes in the press and the public. Another grievance was the coroner's decision to restrict the inquest to events before 3.15pm, meaning that the response of the emergency services went largely unexamined. This led to a long running campaign for justice.

Another investigation in 1997 found no new evidence, and a private prosecution of Duckenfield in 2000 couldn't reach a verdict. With new impetus from the 20th anniversary, the campaign achieved a partial victory in 2009; the government set up the Hillsborough Independent Panel to review previously unseen evidence. Their 2012 report again exonerated fans and blamed the police, but also revealed the scale of their attempts to deflect blame, including the large-scale altering of statements. It criticised the coroner, asserting many of the victims were still alive after 3.15pm, and the emergency service response, concluding that up to 41 of the 96 fatalities might have been avoided. This led to public apologies from the Prime Minister David Cameron, the police, the FA and Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of The Sun at the time. The accidental death verdicts were set aside, with new inquests opened. Investigations were also begun by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

You're welcome to try and get that into the article, but I guarantee that you will fail, or at least have to endure hours, if not days, if not months, of ridiculous nonsense just for trying, and will still probably not end up getting it to look anything close to this. This is Wikipedia, this is how it works. Gorton 984 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to other editors to decide what to do with this as I can't edit the article itself (I deliberately locked myself out of my username here ages ago because I should have been other things with my time - but seem to have got sucked in again on this subject) but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to come up with a proposal. We'll see what happens. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillsborough_disaster/Archive_1&oldid=1142763446"