Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 2

Image issues
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 - You  really  can  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.


 * I don't think Hillsborough Independent Panel is helpful or useful; rather it should be a redirect to this article. Thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It does seem unnecessary as there is a large section on it here with most of the content of the article giving a good 'cut and thrust' of it. After merging redirect to the relevant section here. -- wintonian  talk  23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The creator of that article has been blocked for edit warring, and three separate users attempted to redirect it to Hillsborough disaster. The simple solution would probably be to redirect once more, given that at least seven users support this course of action (here, there and at WT:FOOTY), and the only user against was blocked specifically for removing the redirect. I can't due it myself due to 3RR. —WFC— FL wishlist 01:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 have redirected. The texts of Hillsborough Independent Panel and Hillsborough disaster were just about identical. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can note that the original page did not have a link tot the source . Apart from not sourced, it was a great encyclopedic section. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Best way forward: I agree. Page Hillsborough_Independent_Panel should stay a redirect until it is independent enough to be on its own. Solved. How come I did not think of that? -DePiep (talk) 02:24, 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

 * September 2012 Hillsborough disaster report (7.25 megabytes). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Article says 1 ambulance entered stadium, programs says 3 ambulances entered stadium - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22566230

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 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
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 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 :


 * "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 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)

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.

--

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)