Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Length of the lead

The current lead is longer than usual, with three paragraphs to explain the disaster and three to explain subsequent developments. Should the final three paragraphs be shortened and possibly reduced to one or two paragraphs? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a draft at the end of this discussion which looks good at first glance, but I still haven't got round to checking it against he existing lede and body. Could you do that? NebY (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The draft there seems to change a lot in the first three paragraphs. How about this [1] instead? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Heysel

It is generally uncontroversial and accepted that the Heysel disaster of 1985 was largely caused by some Liverpool supporters, and this led to a ban on British football clubs playing in Europe that was still in place at the time of the Hillsborough disaster. Further, it was partly responsible for much of the initial blame placed upon Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough and the suggestion of hooliganism in particular. Despite this, the only real mention of this in the article is in a brief explanation of the controversial remarks made by Jacques Georges. Should the Heysel disaster, both its causes and consequences for British football, be addressed properly, but succinctly, in the article, possibly in the section ‘Before the disaster’? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can it be verified that "it was partly responsible for much of the initial blame..."? If we could cite sources then we might include it but otherwise it would be excluded as editorial theorising and speculation. NebY (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, not unless reliable secondary sources have written an analysis showing the connection with this article (hint: there is no underlying connection, so that's not going to happen). Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I have found two references on the BBC website after a very simple search:
"A wave of hooliganism, with the Heysel incident of 1985 perhaps the most sickening episode, was justification enough for many who wanted to see football fans closely controlled. ... The 1989 image of football fans as scum - anti-social, violent young men who'd drunk too much - perhaps goes some way to explain the egregious behaviour of some of the emergency services and others after Hillsborough." [2]
"The prime minister was informed that a senior member of the Merseyside Police directly blamed supporters: "One officer, born and bred in Liverpool, said that he was deeply ashamed to say that it was drunken Liverpool fans who had caused this disaster, just as they had caused the deaths at Heysel."" [3]
I am sure there are many more if one takes the time to look further. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


There is an inquest in progress. The Attorney General has issued wide ranging guidelines about commenting online. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-issues-advisory-note-before-hillsborough-inquests-start . The thrust of this discussion is in danger of running foul of that directive. 109.151.165.74 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Should the Heysel disaster, both its causes and consequences for British football, be addressed properly, but succinctly...". Yes. Per 86.133's two examples, Heysel clearly formed part of the context in which Hillsborough was and has been considered. Many wikipedia articles lack context; those which include it are very much richer reading experiences. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an act of excessive simplification to isolate the behaviour of Liverpool supporters when discussing the English football ban. Hooliganism was a problem across the entire country for a lengthy period of time. Margaret Thatcher called it the "English disease", not the Liverpool disease. The steel fencing at Hillsborough stadium was erected long before 1985. The history of hooliganism is considerable and involves many different clubs; far beyond English boarders, even. We already have a paragraph in the section titled Before the disaster that summarises the situation as it stood in 1985:
"At the time of the disaster, most English football stadiums had high steel fencing between the spectators and the playing field in response to both friendly and hostile pitch invasions. Hooliganism had affected the sport for some years, and was particularly virulent in England. From 1974, when these security standards were put in place, crushes occurred in several English stadiums."
As I remarked previously, the Heysel incident is more relevant in providing the context for Police deception and obfuscation. It allowed senior officers to brush aside the previous overcrowding incidents at Hillsborough stadium and instead promote a fictitious narrative that there was something uniquely abhorrent about Liverpool fans (even when the club attracted broad support from across the nation, and a sad irony that a number of people who lost their lives that day didn't even come from Merseyside). Yet the tactic was successful for many years, and crops up occasionally even today. — TPX 23:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

coverup

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/17/hillsborough-disaster-police-masonic-conspiracy

I propose a section to add to the "controversy" section about coverup. Popish Plot (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This would have problems with WP:WEIGHT because it is based on something that one person said, rather than widespread media coverage. There is also a lot of hearsay involved. Disclaimer: I do not roll up my trouser legs or give funny handshakes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that goes for everything else in the controversy section here? Popish Plot (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"Maxwell Groome, a constable at the time, said that after the disaster at the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Sheffield Wednesday’s football ground, “the word” inside the force was that freemason officers held a meeting to blame superintendent Roger Marshall." Not very substantial stuff, and probably not worth mentioning in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-30520871 Popish Plot (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33331917 Popish Plot (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be surprising if someone did not say that there was a conspiracy or cover up. A single hearsay account does not have good verifiability or notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We have reliable sources about the latest info from the inquest and this wiki article is largely about said inquest. The article already says there were multiple failures and this helps explain why.Popish Plot (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This wiki article is not largely about the inquest, here is the entirety of what it says on the subject: "On 19 December 2012, a new inquest was granted in the High Court." Previous enquiries, of all types, are covered in detail, because they have reported. The same will apply to the inquest, which is ongoing, once the jury reach a conclusion and the coroner makes their report. This is in line with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT and also avoids the risk of prejudicing the inquest before it reaches its conclusions. WP:DUST is also a useful essay on these matters. The accusation may have been reported by reliable sources but it is still an accusation from a single person with no supporting evidence and no corroboration from other sources, that very much makes it a primary source especially as the newspapers are reporting it with no further comment or investigation as whether it may be true or not (again, to avoid the risk of prejudicing the inquest). So you have establish that evidence submitted to the inquest (and there is an awful lot of it) is worth adding to the article before the inquest has weighed the evidence and come to a conclusion and so there are no secondary sources to draw on for context. If you can do that, you need to establish why this particular submission (from December, last year, so not "the latest information" not that that's especially relevant anyway) and not all the others which comes back to the WP:WEIGHT issue raised in the first reply, above. I doubt you can do that without straying into original research because all we have here is a single accusation, nothing else. If it is incorporated into the coroner's report or there's a subsequent news story that develops from the accusation (which there won't be before the inquest is over) then it may well merit inclusion, but as things stand it does not. Lastly, in terms of your own editing and trying to adhere to WP:NPOV you may find it useful to take a step back and ask yourself why this particular part of an ongoing vast inquiry strikes you as so important. That's just a suggestion, and you don't need to reply here, but I think we all find it useful to consider our biases once in a while. 95.144.77.40 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, to quote from the Guardian article you linked to:
Groome said he subsequently heard of the meeting between senior officers, said to have included Duckenfield, superintendents Roger Greenwood and Bernard Murray, Inspector Steven Sewell and Chief inspector David Beal.
“Being unable to prove it, I believe that most of them were masons,” he said.
The coroner, Lord Justice Goldring, sent out the jury of seven women and four men to allow legal discussions after Groome gave his evidence about the freemasons’ meeting. At the end of the day, the coroner referred the jury to “evidence of a meeting said by Mr Groome, on the basis of rumour, to have taken place on the morning of April 16”.
Goldring told them: “I should say this quite clearly to you: we have no other evidence than this rumour, said to emanate from the [South Yorkshire police] area office. It amounts to no more than what the witness described as ‘scuttlebutt’.’”
I think that pretty definitively closes the matter. 95.144.77.40 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Inquest is mentioned 24 times in the article, why do you think it's once? Popish Plot (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the word "inquest", I was talking about the new inquest, currently ongoing, which was announced in December 2012 and began taking evidence at the end of March 2014 (to get an idea of the sheer number of testimonies given at the hearings so far see here). The new inquest has one sentence about it, at the end of the lead, which I've already quoted. All other mentions of inquest refer to the original inquest in 1989 which returned a verdict of accidental death and was overturned in 2012, leading to the new inquest.
I haven't checked your count (as counting words doesn't prove anything at all), but it occurs to me that since you apparently know very little about Hillsborough you may also be getting confused about the differences between an inquest and an inquiry. With Hillsborough, there have been two government inquiries: one that lead to the Taylor Report; and the inquiry by the Hillsborough Independent Panel. Neither of them was a full Public Inquiry. Once the new inquest has concluded, further investigations may take place, which could include criminal prosecutions, referrals to the IPCC or even a public inquiry. The inquest is just a first step in some cases (for example, a verdict of unlawful killing would still require a criminal prosecution to find those responsible).
Regardless of all that, the word count of "inquest" makes no difference to the unsuitability of this accusation for inclusion: whatever you say, it's hearsay, pure and simple. 95.144.77.40 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source saying it's hearsay? I think the one valid reason for not including this would be that Wikipedia is not a newspaper but this old news now from December 2014. We wouldn't include this info from yesterday: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/14/hillsborough-victim-returned-to-pen-inquest" but eventually we would. It refers to the inquest that was begun 2012. The last sentence of the lede here is currently: " On 19 December 2012, a new inquest was granted in the High Court." Perhaps the entire article should be edited to make the use of inquest and/or inquiry consistent? That's a separate issue. Popish Plot (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It is hearsay because Maxwell Groome was relying on things that he had heard. He could have been recycling gossip that he heard in the canteen. Groome offered no direct evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
IanMacM puts it well and it's a judgement we have to make as editors about the reliability of sources. Also the burden of proof is on you show that this information is from a reliable source and needs adding to the article, not the other way around. For what it's worth, though, the article quotes the Groome as saying he is unable to prove it and the coroner specifically instructed the jury that there is no evidence for the accusation and quotes Groome as saying it was scuttlebutt (a synonym for hearsay). Also bear in mind that exceptional claims require exceptional sources and in cases like this relying on a single primary source is unlikely to be reliable (and a report of an inquest proceeding with no commentary or analysis is undoubtedly a primary source). And let's be clear here: Groome is the source for this claim, not the media outlets reporting it - they make no claims about the accusation the merely report what was said. So we have a single source (Groome) with no reputation for accuracy reporting something which he admits is gossip. The only assessment of this is given by the coroner (whose profession is assessing evidence) who stresses to the jury that there is no evidence to support it. Plus there's the original issue of undue weight - why this and not any other evidence given to the inquest? I think it's worth you reading all the links (except for the joke ones) you have been given as I don't think you've grasped the principles of this beyond the most basic finding of a source. If you want some views from further afield it may be worth raising this as WP:RSN (make sure you detail the specifics).
For clarity: the new inquest didn't begin in 2012, it was announced then, when the verdict of the original inquest was quashed. It began in March 2014. All references to inquests and inquiries are consistent in the article and it doesn't need changing on that score. An inquest establishes the cause of death the context of the word "inquest" in the article shows where it referring to the original (1989) inquest or the new (2014) inquest. The inquiries had a wider remit and are referred to by name in the article. 2.25.138.10 (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think guardian isn't a reliable source? And good point, a lot of other things should be in the article but this is one source I was looking into at the moment.
Currently here is the last sentence in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#Hillsborough_Independent_Panel : "On 12 July 2013 it was reported that the IPCC had found that in addition to the now 164 police statements known to have been altered, a further 55 police officers had changed their statements. Deborah Glass, deputy chair of the IPCC said, "We know the people who have contacted us are the tip of the iceberg." That was after the IPCC's Hillsborough Contact team had received 230 pieces of correspondence since October 2012. The IPCC also expected to launch a public appeal for more witnesses to come forward in the autumn of 2013. The IPCC investigation into how the West Midlands Police investigated South Yorkshire Police's conduct is also ongoing.[122]" This makes it seem like things are continuing, i.e. not all finished. Is there anything that can be added to the article about this since, or has there been no notable news? Or has there been notable news but it is very recent, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper so no need to add it now? How about the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#Controversies ? Here it makes some quotes that you may say is hearsay, although that would matter in a court of law, if hearsay is notable enough and from a reliable source it should be in Wikipedia. This even mentions an unnamed civil cervant who edited this Wikipedia page. Is Groome, a cop involved in the case, not notable? How about David Conn then the guardian reporter who reported on this? He often reports on the Hillsborough disaster. http://www.theguardian.com/profile/davidconn Popish Plot (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep answering like you haven't even bothered to read peoples replies. Please read what has been said on this page carefully and try to understand it and also read all the links provided. The Guardian is not the source for this, Groome is, The Guardian is just reporting, pretty much verbatim, what was said at the inquest, they aren't making any claims about Freemasons being involved in a cover up. Groome is, by his own admission (and in the opinion of the coroner), not a reliable witness as all he is doing is repeating gossip. It is absolutely not suitable for an encyclopedia to use gossip as a source - how much clearer can that be? Seriously, no editor is going to want to include that here. And to repeat, if Wikipedia also has be to sure it isn't in contempt of court when writing about the inquest. If you're really sure this is suitable for an encyclopedia then I suggest you get a second opinion from WP:RSN but they're just going to agree that its not worth including. And my "good point" was not that the hundreds of pages of testimony to the inquest needs to be detailed in the article it was the exact opposite - the inquest isn't worth including until it reaches a verdict and we have secondary sources to draw on. That seems to be something that you don't understand a present: the difference between primary and secondary sources.
As the IPCC, they haven't reported yet (their page is here). So it would probably be best to leave that until they have reported as well, WP:DUST I think applies well here to all of this. Also the IPCC don't take evidence in public so we won't know a lot about their investigation until it is finished.
I'm concerned here that you're pushing a point of view that freemasonry helps to explain what happened (to quote "The article already says there were multiple failures and this helps explain why") and that simply isn't verifiable on the basis of a rumour, regardless of who reports on that rumour being given as evidence. You've been perfectly civil but please, take a step back, read the policies and don't be one of these people. I don't think they're anything more to be said about this, so that's it from me.2.25.138.10 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Guardian is the source. that's how Wikipedia works. Do you think we should only have things from ipcc.gov on here? Then I bet you'd say that is just a primary source lol. Also, rumors are ok as long as notable and have reliable source. Just check the entire section here called controversies. Please don't make any personal comments or assume bad faith. Popish Plot (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-issues-advisory-note-before-hillsborough-inquests-start doesn't apply to Wikipedia.Popish Plot (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm done with this, as it stands this isn't being added to the article - and if you can't understand why not then never mind. If you're determined that it's important and needs adding then be WP:BOLD and add it - but it will be reverted (not by me, I'm leaving well alone) and WP:BRD will only establish a firm consensus against adding this to the article. However, going through the process may well help you understand why. And I'm sorry, but I've assumed good faith thus far and I can now only explain the arguments you've made are bad faith POV-pushing since everything in you most recent statement is either blatantly incorrect or a misrepresentation of my arguments to the extent that if you were trolling it'd have the same effect. That really is the last thing I'll say on this, do whatever you feel is necessary: edit the article; or ask at WP:RSN; or just leave things be. I'll let others take the process further. 2.25.138.10 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the last thing I want to is make you angry. I apologize. Please stay and help edit. I won't try to put anything in any wiki article that is controversial and doesn't have consensus. Popish Plot (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Edward Pearce

A citation is 'needed' for the fact that Pearce has never apologised for his vile article. How would it be possible to provide such a citation of non-existence? Limhey (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Steven Cohen

Added Cohen to controversies. He has a page of his own which also deals with the matter. Limhey (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

John Williams

Added local Liverpool journalist to controversies. Limhey (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Human Stampede link at bottom of page

The link to 'human stampede' at the bottom of this page needs to be removed. Hillsborough was NOT a human stampede - the Hillsborough Independent Report has proven this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnefox (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You can edit this yourself, be bold! Note though that the list at the bottom is a template so removing that template from this article won't removed the link to here in that template. Talk pages for the template and other articles/categories that list Hillsborough as a "human stampede": Template talk:Human stampedes; Talk:Stampede; Talk:List of human stampedes; and Category talk:Human stampedes in the United Kingdom.
For what it's worth, they seem to be categorising any event where the weight of crowd numbers leads to death or injury as a stampede - and Hillsborough seems to fit this definition (it doesn't necessarily imply the crowd was at fault, either, merely that the pressure of numbers caused a problem). Probably worth starting some discussion on those talk pages, or maybe start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management and then linking to it on the talk pages.
95.150.42.220 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I see you've already left a comment on Talk:Stampede. However if you reply to a very old comment (from 2008 in this case) the chances are that nobody will read it. If you want to raise discussions before making changes, start a new subject. And you're more likely to get some discussion if you mention it to a WikiProject (like the one linked above).
Alternatively, just be bold and make the changes yourself (leaving a message on the talk page of someone who left a comment in 2008 and requesting they make an edit that you could make yourself is definitely not the way to do it). If you do edit the articles, have a read of WP:BRD and be prepared for some discussion. Also, it's worth reading WP:SIG - signing your posts is easy and makes the discussion easier to follow. 95.150.42.220 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a big discussion about the word "stampede" right now on Talk:2015 Mina stampede, accompanying an effort by a minority of editors, including me, to have the article changed to the more neutral "2015 Mina disaster". Unfortunately, it seems to me English media learned very little from the Hillsborough disaster and the initial vilification of Liverpool supporters (who were frequently characterized as "animals"). English media are quite sensitive to disasters in Denmark or Germany, but consistently and blithely choose the word "stampede" to describe progressive crowd collapse disasters in India, the Far East, Africa, and the Middle East. "Progressive crowd collapse" is the correct term, but it lacks the desired connotation of animalistic brutality, deliberate trampling, indifference to human life, etc., all of which seem to be desirable when English media (including the BBC) describe people of non-European descent caught in guiltless circumstances very similar to Hillsborough. When it comes to people of color and particularly people of non-Christian backgrounds, de-humanization of the victims is key, and the word "stampede" is sufficient to do that. It also absolves English-language reporters of responsibility to ask deeper questions or do more thorough reporting. So what if academic experts on crowd crush disasters universally condemn the use and connotations of the word "stampede"? So what if these same experts have pointed out, time and time again, that the supposed "threat" from the panicking crowd was precisely the reason why help and relief was so slow to come to the victims of Hillsborough, and the very language we use to describe these crowd phenomena ("panic", "stampede", etc) hinders and inhibits the understanding of both crowd control officials and response from emergency medical teams?

Crowd crushes and progressive crowd collapse disasters are on the increase, can happen anywhere, and happen to real people. As for the "stampede" of ignorant English-language journalists, it will apparently not soon be stopped Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent comment. I agree with every word. Wikipedia should be looking very hard at no longer using the word "stampede" for these events. Even disregarding the idea of it being used in a bigoted way, it carries clear connotations of the responsibility being on people in the crowd wantonly trampling others, and more importantly, is completely inaccurate, as no "stampeding" goes on or could go on when people are so densely packed that they cannot move or even breathe. Last I checked, the concept of a "human stampede" actually shares a page with the one for an animal stampede, complete with a picture of horses at the top. They are completely different kinds of events. MrBook (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is its editors, if you want this changing then you need to set it in motion yourselves. The template that appears on this page is separate to it, so discussing it here can only result in it being removed from this page (and the template would still include this article). When this was first raised I posted some links, above, to pages and template where changes could be discussed. I suggest you both start up discussions at those links. 95.144.77.11 (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the category and template from this article and removed this article from the template. I'd encourage everyone commenting here to at least watchlist Template:Human stampedes and preferably to use your knowledge to judiciously remove other articles from it and engage in the other discussions mentioned. NebY (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Update: Two weeks ago I renamed List of human stampedes as List of human crushes. Having had no complaints, reverts or feedback, I've now gone ahead and changed Template:Human stampedes to Template:Human crushes. If that change sticks, then I suggest we could add this article to it again and place the template at the foot of this article again. NebY (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Table of homes

I appreciate Eckerslike's attempt to keep the table of homes of victims relatively compact and Kieronoldham's concern that it could be confusing, e.g. by showing the number of victims from Runcorn and Warrington as 4. Would this modification of Eckerslike's table do? I've inserted "each" on four lines and (more trivially) removed the sorting capability.

Home Number of victims
Liverpool 37
Rest of Greater Merseyside 20
Runcorn, Warrington 4 each
Leicester, Sheffield 3 each
Chester, Pinner, Preston, Skelmersdale, Wigan 2 each
Basildon, Bristol, Bromsgrove, Bury, Cannock, Clwyd, Gloucester, Keighley, Leigh, London, St Albans, Stockport, Stoke-on-Trent, Swanwick, Wrexham 1 each

NebY (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Think I would prefer the longer table which gives 1 line per place as it gives you the chance to have a county and the sorting facility allows you to view by place order. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that is is largely non-notable information. Too have such a large section on it is excessive. While the geographical distribution of the victims will be of interest the table does little to portray this. It uses a huge variety of locations from a village in Derbyshire (Swanwick) to the whole of Greater London as well as a location which is within London itself (Pinner) . As such it is not that useful for an encyclopedia. The data might be better presented in a couple sentences such as
All victims were from England and Wales with the majority from Liverpool (37) and Greater Merseyside (20). A further 17 were from counties adjacent to Merseyside...

Aggregating the data to county level and putting it on a map could also be used to present the information in a more concise manner. Eckerslike (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the couple-of-sentences approach would sit well in this article. It's true the long table allows sorting and detailing, but I still can't think why readers would sort the table or what the detail adds. The sentences outlined above actually provide a clearer, more encyclopedic picture. NebY (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have aggregated the data in the following way

Home Number of victims Aggregate
Liverpool 37 Liverpool
Rest of Greater Merseyside 20 Greater Merseyside
Runcorn, Cheshire 4 Adj. to Merseyside
Warrington, Cheshire 4 Adj. to Merseyside
Leicester, Leicestershire 3 Rest of England
Sheffield, Yorkshire 3 Sheffield
Chester, Cheshire 2 Adj. to Merseyside
Pinner, Middlesex 2 Rest of England
Preston, Lancashire 2 Adj. to Merseyside
Skelmersdale, Lancashire 2 Adj. to Merseyside
Wigan, Greater Manchester 2 Adj. to Merseyside
Basildon, Essex 1 Rest of England
Bristol, Avon 1 Rest of England
Bromsgrove, Worcestershire 1 Rest of England
Bury, Greater Manchester 1 Adj. to Merseyside
Cannock, Staffordshire 1 Rest of England
Clwyd, North Wales 1 Rest of England
Gloucester, Gloucestershire 1 Rest of England
Keighley, Yorkshire 1 Adj. to South Yorkshire
Leigh, Greater Manchester 1 Adj to Merseyside
London 1 Rest of England
St Albans, Hertfordshire 1 Rest of England
Stockport, Greater Manchester 1 Adj. to Merseyside
Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire 1 Rest of England
Swanwick, Derbyshire 1 Adj. to South Yorkshire
Wrexham, North Wales 1 Adj. to Merseyside

Feel free to check my figures (I've only got a bachelors in Maths so it's not in any way embarrassing if they're wrong). Eckerslike (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sun removal - Scraton (1999) - check please

Would someone with access to Scraton (1999) check this removal, please. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Searching Google Books can often be sufficient in these cases. This is what I found for Scraton and there's another source here. So it's not a fake reference but Murdoch wasn't involved, so I'll undo that deletion and amend the paragraph in a moment. It is possible to do a cite book with a specific page number and link it to google books (there's an automated form to do it somewhere) but that would be different to the citation style in the rest of the article, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide it it's worth doing in this case. 2.25.137.175 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
That second link (Stick it up your Punter) is the original source as its the one that Scraton uses (and quotes) in his account. 2.25.137.175 (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Liverpool Echo

I've updated the section on South Yorkshire Police Chief David Crompton with his reactions to the verdict. In doing so I've found at least three relevant articles from the Liverpool Echo, though only one was directly relevant to Crompton:

--Thnidu (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Inquest

This article needs a "effected by current events" as the jury decision has come out today (26/4/2016) and there will be multiple updates that need to be made.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-england-merseyside-36102998

It might be worth locking it for a short period while the decision is considered? 10:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im a teapot (talk • contribs)

@Im a teapot: I'm not sure we need that template. Although the article is being updated, there is not a mass amount of editors trying to do so all at the same time. We don't generally pre-emptively lock articles in anticipation of major editing sessions. Many IPs do make constructive edits. No evidence of major disruption from IP editors at the moment. We admins have the ability to deal with those who are not editing constructivly. This can often be done without recourse to semi-protection. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Am i blind or i there nothing about the new inquest in the article at all? Dimspace (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dimspace: - it's there at Hillsborough disaster#Second hearing. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: - Im blind as a bat.. i looked and looked.. What i might suggest is the inquests hearings moves above memorial, so that chronologically the various hearings etc fit a timeline better. Dimspace (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Sun's current article on this

Seems to have omitted their part it it. The article is here. The outrage in the comments is incredible! - 203.33.164.62 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source for what day it is! Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably nothing to be said directly about the Sun's most recent coverage (or omissions) without straying into original research, but other news sources are picking up on the fact that neither they nor the Times featured the inquest verdicts on their front pages this morning. Some sources: [4], [5] and [6]. There's also this, which covers the reader reaction to the Sun's lack of an apology. Maybe someone can add something to cover these? I'm not entirely sure where to add or how to word, so will leave to others. 2.25.105.253 (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC) (not the same IP who posted above)
The second edition of the Times did feature a front cover with Hillsborough highlighted. I think the fact that the Sun was the only UK newspaper not to feature the story on the front page is notable, and of significance and should certainly be referenced. Dimspace (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillsborough killings?

@DavidGrey96: and The Rambling Man I note the recent change of "disaster" to "killings" and its subsequent reversion. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should stay at its current title. DavidGrey96, your user name suggests some connection with this event. Therefore you appear to have a conflict of interest here. It may be better if you were to suggest changes on this talk page and allow other editors to decide. Of course, you can always be bold, but if you are reverted, then the edit needs to be discussed rather than repeated should you wish it to remain. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: No disagreement here, just curiosity, but I don't see anything about a David Grey in the article; what's your basis for suspicion of COI? Of course the user's one-day-old registration and just two edits, both on this page, are suspicious. --Thnidu (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Thnidu: it's the "96" in the user name that raises my suspicions. It may well be that DavidGrey96 is related to a victim. I'm glad that the right verdict has been reached, but our job here is to maintain a neutral point of view. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Oh, duh, of course! I'm so used to seeing usernames ending in apparently arbitrary numbers, I just ignored it. Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think conflict of interest to could apply to about 90% of the uk population right now. Public opinion is very much behind the families. Any Liverpool fan (myself included) has a COI ;) Dimspace (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Liverpool Echo

I've updated the section on South Yorkshire Police Chief David Crompton with his reactions to the verdict. In doing so I've found at least three relevant articles from the Liverpool Echo, though only one was directly relevant to Crompton:

--Thnidu (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Inquest

This article needs a "effected by current events" as the jury decision has come out today (26/4/2016) and there will be multiple updates that need to be made.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-england-merseyside-36102998

It might be worth locking it for a short period while the decision is considered? 10:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im a teapot (talk • contribs)

@Im a teapot: I'm not sure we need that template. Although the article is being updated, there is not a mass amount of editors trying to do so all at the same time. We don't generally pre-emptively lock articles in anticipation of major editing sessions. Many IPs do make constructive edits. No evidence of major disruption from IP editors at the moment. We admins have the ability to deal with those who are not editing constructivly. This can often be done without recourse to semi-protection. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Am i blind or i there nothing about the new inquest in the article at all? Dimspace (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dimspace: - it's there at Hillsborough disaster#Second hearing. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: - Im blind as a bat.. i looked and looked.. What i might suggest is the inquests hearings moves above memorial, so that chronologically the various hearings etc fit a timeline better. Dimspace (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Sun's current article on this

Seems to have omitted their part it it. The article is here. The outrage in the comments is incredible! - 203.33.164.62 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source for what day it is! Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably nothing to be said directly about the Sun's most recent coverage (or omissions) without straying into original research, but other news sources are picking up on the fact that neither they nor the Times featured the inquest verdicts on their front pages this morning. Some sources: [7], [8] and [9]. There's also this, which covers the reader reaction to the Sun's lack of an apology. Maybe someone can add something to cover these? I'm not entirely sure where to add or how to word, so will leave to others. 2.25.105.253 (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC) (not the same IP who posted above)
The second edition of the Times did feature a front cover with Hillsborough highlighted. I think the fact that the Sun was the only UK newspaper not to feature the story on the front page is notable, and of significance and should certainly be referenced. Dimspace (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillsborough killings?

@DavidGrey96: and The Rambling Man I note the recent change of "disaster" to "killings" and its subsequent reversion. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should stay at its current title. DavidGrey96, your user name suggests some connection with this event. Therefore you appear to have a conflict of interest here. It may be better if you were to suggest changes on this talk page and allow other editors to decide. Of course, you can always be bold, but if you are reverted, then the edit needs to be discussed rather than repeated should you wish it to remain. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: No disagreement here, just curiosity, but I don't see anything about a David Grey in the article; what's your basis for suspicion of COI? Of course the user's one-day-old registration and just two edits, both on this page, are suspicious. --Thnidu (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Thnidu: it's the "96" in the user name that raises my suspicions. It may well be that DavidGrey96 is related to a victim. I'm glad that the right verdict has been reached, but our job here is to maintain a neutral point of view. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Oh, duh, of course! I'm so used to seeing usernames ending in apparently arbitrary numbers, I just ignored it. Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think conflict of interest to could apply to about 90% of the uk population right now. Public opinion is very much behind the families. Any Liverpool fan (myself included) has a COI ;) Dimspace (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I made a bold edit of the first paragraph. I know this is a contentious article; I have very little prior knowledge of the disaster, however, and I hope the change is logical and neutral.

Roughly, the paragraph began by describing the date and location of the disaster, the nature of the match, the presence of steel fencing, and then the specific area where the disaster happened. I changed the order of the last two, because it fits better with the preceding sentences before moving on to the cause of the disaster. I then moved the sentence about the first inquiry from the second paragraph, and added a sentence about the new inquiry. This way, the first paragraph is a more complete narrative.

I did not include anything about the media coverage. Note that The Sun is mentioned in passing in Section 6.3 (Effects) and then in greater detail in 9.1.1 (The Sun). Unfortunately the reader who is not familiar with the disaster will not know what is meant by 'the headline "The Truth"'. It is evident that the tabloid's coverage of the disaster is still painful and fresh in the memories of many today, so an editor more familiar with the issue might address it. Roches (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Categorization

I've been looking at the categories for this article. I think that the only category this article needs to be in is Category:Hillsborough disaster. All other categories should be listed under that category. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Many of these categories include both the page and the page's category, which is redundant, but I don't think the solution is to remove the page from those categories. For some of them, such as the football clubs' categories, the game is important but the pages about the individuals who were involved are much less so. Conversely, those individuals as well as the disaster page itself are certainly relevant to Stadium disasters, so only Category:Hillsborough disaster should be included there, as a subcategory.
Here are my thoughts on the subject. In many checkY cases I'm linking and quoting from a random article in the category to show that the scope of the disaster was comparable. My comments are in italics; quotations are not.
Red XN: do not include
checkY: include Category:Hillsborough disaster (but not the page)
Ⓟ: include page Hillsborough disaster (not the category)
--Thnidu (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick one on the "Filmed deaths" bit. At the bottom of 'The Crush' section it says "BBC television cameras were at the ground to record the game for Match of the Day. As the disaster unfolded, the events were relayed live to the Saturday sports show, Grandstand." ... it's pretty distressing footage, but it was certainly all filmed.--LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Government IP vandal edit in the news again

History is repeating itself.[10] This time the Liverpool Echo found this edit, which was made from an IP address registered to Warwickshire County Council. It was reverted after one minute, so well done to User:DiscantX who beat ClueBot to it. The article should probably be semi-protected at the moment to prevent vandalism, but the Liverpool Echo also needs to understand that there is little point in highlighting vandal edits which are reverted quickly. The only notable thing about this edit is that it once again shows how bored some UK government employees are (clarification: the source says that the IP address range also includes public libraries).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the folk over at the Echo have ever tried to counter vandalism themselves? If they had, they'd quickly realize that this sort of thing gets posted several times a minute, every minute, from a huge range of sources that can often be tracked down to publicly available IP addresses. There's nothing to see here except the usual immaturity that we are bound to occasionally attract.  DiscantX 21:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, I sort of made the news. Yay!  DiscantX 21:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but I hope you don't mind me adding this content to the Hillsborough Wikipedia posts article. Many thanks. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 12:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Zumoarirodoka, honestly, I feel it's a sensationalized bit of reporting that isn't particularly needed in this article. As has been alluded to, it was an asinine edit made by someone with too much time on his/her hands. It frankly has little to do with the disaster and whoever did it, be it a government employee or a user at a library, shouldn't be given any attention. Unless it can be proven to be an elected official or someone else of importance that is trying to inject some sort of political message (in which case, we would need a source that blatantly calls them out for that), then it shouldn't be included. I won't undo your edit, but I really don't feel it should be included.  DiscantX 12:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you meant you made the edit to this article, not to Hillsborough Wikipedia posts. What I said still remains, though the edit may fit in there. It's still rather sensationalized though, and I question its inclusion in that article until something has come of it saying it was anything more than random vandalism.  DiscantX 12:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
It has WP:TOPIC issues here. It isn't all that notable that some people use IP addresses to write junk about Hillsborough on Wikipedia. This would be more appropriate in Hillsborough Wikipedia posts, although in April 2016 it was one edit that was off after one minute.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Completely understand why it shouldn't be included in this article, that's why I've undone my edits made here. But I still think this warrants inclusion on the "Hillsborough Wikipedia posts" article, given the investigation by the council. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 12:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Liverpool Echo

It's probably worth noting that the Liverpool Echo seems to have some skin in the game. In the last 2 or 3 days they have tagged close to 100 of their articles with "Hillsborough" (see: pages 123). Not that this unfortunate event should be forgotten, but any source with that many articles should probably be looked at as biased and unreliable.  DiscantX 09:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Or, you know, it might just be a Liverpool newspaper dealing with the largest piece of Liverpool news in 27 years. Quite why you should find it suprising or suspicious that there is that much Hillsborough news coverage puzzles me. And tbh, your "has skin in the game" comment, in context, is as grossly offensive as it is stupidly insensitive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies about the "skin in the game" comment, dumb choice of words. By that I meant that they are closely connected to the event. That said, it's not surprising, nor suspicious, that anyone from Liverpool would have feelings about this event, but the same as we view anyone at Wikipedia that has a connection to an article, in this case it seems to me there is a COI, even though it comes from something that might otherwise be a reputable source. As you say, it's "the largest piece of Liverpool news in 27 years." It's not to say that those from Liverpool can't report on Liverpool news, but if, as this topic started with originally, someone is reporting on some claptrap that someone decided to edit into Wikipedia, along with 100 other articles on the subject, of which they are quite possibly connected to, then maybe they shouldn't be taken to be unbiased.  DiscantX 10:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It might be worth checking other regional sources that are not quite so closely involved. The Blackpool Gazette and Manchester Evening News come to mind. Both close to Liverpool, but not so close as to be blinkered. May be a touch of bias against Liverpool from the MEN, but hopefully they will put rivalries aside at this time. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillsborough disaster controversies

This section is enormous and getting larger by the day. Is it time to split the information off to a new page and provide a summary here? — TPX 11:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's dominating the article, then yes. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I second that, regarding the Controversies section itself. It can be summarized with a "Main article:" link. The media response, particularly The Sun, should be discussed in the main article to some extent. The other controversies in that section mostly regard public statements that reference the disaster, rather than any aspect of the disaster as it unfolded or its aftermath. Those controversies are discussed in the article as they arise, and that's the only way to handle it. In other words, if a long section about the time of death controversy, about the way victims were identified, about the involvement of alcohol, etc.. should arise, it would have to remain in the article. Roches (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I also agree; a brief and concise summary of the controversies should appear on this page, with a link to a spinoff article discussing in greater detail. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 14:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

2nd film

I made some changes to the titles and to the way the article deals with false statements. The article requires some improvement. In particular, it assumes knowledge of the disaster; but we do not want to overlap content with this article. Roches (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I watched the film and tried to write a summary for that article -- basically a scene-by-scene description. It was difficult to write the part about the incident itself, but it became impossible once the various incompetent characters involved in the aftermath began to speak. Such fat old upper-class men as cannot handle their jobs — how easily they forget the alcohol they have themselves consumed. I'm not in any way involved with this disaster, which perhaps is part of why it seems so clear-cut to me. Let no one pretend the Liverpool supporters and the South Yorkshire Police are on opposing sides. It may be possible to count on one hand the number of old boys who were too arrogant to apologize, too foolish to admit a mistake. For their sake all the devastation that followed was made necessary, and for their sake the South Yorkshire Police were made to accept corruption. Roches (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillsborough_disaster/Archive_4&oldid=767624146"