Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 5

Altered Police Witness statements
The current text reads: "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."

This is somewhat misleading. It is clear from the full report that all draft witness statements made by police officers were read through by the force's solicitors who recommended a number of revisions to many of them. Far from there being some sort of conspiracy however the full report points to perfectly reasonable explanations for the textual changes (some very minor) - not least that professional witness statements quite properly required officers simply to describe what they had personally seen and done, and not gratuitously add in what they felt, or what they thought about Liverpool fans or about their own senior managers. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs) 10:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You say "a number of revisions" have "reasonable explanations". That might be so. Yet we also know from the report and reliable sources that many of the amendments removed obervations and criticism of senior Police officers, including the decision to open the gate, and their general handling of the situation. We go with what reliable sources say. — TPX 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The HIP Report gives a breakdown in Chapter 11 (p. 321 onward) of the reasons for amending a total of 194 statements: grammatical correction, redundant language and jargon (30); coarse or informal language (22); police response or inadequate leadership (116). The 116 included: poor communications or inadequate radio contact (48); deletion of the words "chaos" (5), "panic" (9), and "confusion" (11). Some 33 statements were altered for "removal of material or criticism of fans"; there may be overlap between these and the 116. This is probably too much detail for the article. Roches (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Some valid points made in rebuttal to this already. It's also worth noting that this is exactly the same argument as you put forward the last time you tried this. The consensus isn't about to change if you wait until you think everyone has forgotten and try the same argument again. Essentially you need to be looking for reliable, secondary, sources that say what you're saying. Then there'd be referenced point of view we could perhaps include in the article, provided it doesn't give it undue weight. What we can't include is original research espousing your own point of view. As I said last time, quoting the summary of the report is sufficient when summarising the report, especially in the absence of any dissenting sources. Incidentally the IPCC is investigating this so another view (with the possibility of criminal proceedings) should come out this year. 2.28.203.156 (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just adding, here's the section of the report summary that is directly quoted (it's paragraph 132). 2.28.203.156 (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to push a personal POV. Quite the contrary. I simply make the observation that when one compares the above mentioned report summary with the media reporting of same that the media appears to have inflated the significance of the amendments to the original police statements. So I would have thought it better (NPOV) to quote the report rather than newspaper reports of the report. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs) 09:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A proposed first paragraph
The first paragraph was recently reworked and, while it introduced some content that I think is critical, it has what I think are some shortcomings. Below is a proposal. References are omitted as they don't work well on talk pages.

This incorporates content from the new first para and the old one. I think the older (before 10 May) paragraph focused more on the events of 15 April 1989 while the new one was primarily about the events that followed. The story of the disaster demands both, but in my evaluation the first para has to present what happened on the day. There is much else it has to present.

I admit the version above (and this talk page comment) is long. The comment is longer than the paragraph. I think the first paragraph should include everything you would want somebody to know if they will read that paragraph and nothing else -- ever. So I considered these things:


 * It should subtly define British football terminology: "...terrace...a standing area..."
 * It should describe in as few words as possible what caused the disaster; I understand this to be the opening of Gate C combined with Pens 3 and 4 being already near capacity. It is very difficult to write this concisely but it is essential. I've avoided use of proper names (Gate C, Pen 3), omitted any mention of turnstiles, the tunnel, the STANDING sign, and innumerable other things.
 * It should explain in as few words as possible how the police were involved. The one indispensable detail other than the gate being opened and the overcrowded "area" is that a senior police officer ordered the gate to be opened. Again many critical facts have to be omitted: lack of preparation, lack of emergency equipment, failure to close the tunnel... All those things determined the magnitude of the disaster. The opening of the gate caused Hillsborough. (Alteration of witness statements is also important because it led to the new investigation.)
 * It should not mention any people involved on the day. If it mentions one, it must mention many.
 * It should be respectful of the people affected by the disaster; it should mention that false allegations were made, but not what they were. Here, it states they were false before saying they were made.

I decided to post the proposal here so others can comment. I hope we can come to a consensus that communicates all the absolutely critical points about Hillborough in one paragraph.

The proposal
All editors are invited to make changes to the text below. I've used the citation needed flag as a placeholder for where refs would be placed; feel free to the same, and if you add a reference comment it out so it doesn't cause problems with the discussion page.

The Hillsborough disaster was a human crush that caused the deaths of 96 people and injured 766 others at a football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield, England, on 15 April 1989. The match was the 1988–89 FA Cup semi-final, with Hillsborough, home ground of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club (SWFC), selected as a neutral venue. The fatal crush occurred in the minutes before and after the 2:58 pm kick-off time, in the Leppings Lane terrace at the western end of the pitch, a standing area allocated to Liverpool supporters.

Entry was possible via a limited number of turnstiles, a restriction that led to dangerous overcrowding outside the ground before kick-off. Neither the police nor SWFC postponed kickoff to ensure the safe passage of supporters into the ground; instead, at 2:52 pm, a gate was opened on the orders of senior police officers, admitting about 2,000 people. Most headed through a prominently signed tunnel leading to the standing areas behind the goal, known as Pen 3 and Pen 4. The influx of people created lethal conditions towards the front of the crowd and, shortly thereafter, a safety barrier collapsed. Steel perimeter fencing, intended to prevent pitch invasions, prevented escape onto the pitch, while lateral fencing, intended to keep too many supporters from congregating behind the goal, trapped people in Pens 3 and 4.

The 1989–90 official inquiry headed by Lord Taylor concluded that "the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control" by South Yorkshire Police (SYP). Lord Taylor's recommendations resulted in the removal of steel perimeter fences and the abolition of standing-room terraces at top-level British football stadiums. A separate coroner's inquest by Stephan Popper ruled that the 96 victims had died of traumatic asphyxia before 3:15 pm, and the jury returned a verdict of accidental death. Relatives of the victims welcomed the Taylor Report but were opposed to the coroner's ruling. They were outraged by the revelation that police witness statements had been altered, and they were vehemently opposed to media coverage, largely based on falsehoods, that was critical of Liverpool supporters' behaviour.

For years, survivors and bereaved demanded a new investigation, until, in 2009, the Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) was formed. HIP delivered its report in 2012; consequently, the verdict of accidental death was quashed. A new coroner's inquest was established. In April 2016 the jury, satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the 96 deaths were the result of a criminal offence, returned a verdict of unlawful killing.

Please leave any comments after this line. Original version: Roches (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Although the above is very long, the three of you have edited the article recently and so you may be interested. This is just a request for collaboration, no changes were made to the article. Roches (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's good that you have initiated this discussion. The inadequate number of turnstiles allocated to Liverpool supporters is central to the disaster. If we keep things concise, can we work that in? I'm not sure if this is nitpicking or not, but the perimeter fence was erected to prevent pitch invasions, but the lateral fencing was put in place following the Tottenham Hotspur and Wolverhampton Wanderers crush, in order to stop too many supporters moving freely along the terrace and congregating behind the goal. This decision contributed to the disaster because by making it more difficult for supporters to escape the area. We might say something like: "...perimeter fencing, intended to prevent pitch invasions, and lateral fencing, erected to prevent...". Otherwise it's looking good. — TPX 14:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a mention of the turnstiles, in bold. (2,000 is from the Interim Taylor Report.) It should be clear that if over 2,000 people had not been admitted the seven turnstiles were inadequate. Additions about the lateral fences are in italics. I considered it desirable to simplify the terrace "area" to avoid having to mention the tunnel and the underfilled wing pens. I also previously omitted "Pen 3 and Pen 4". What do you (and others) think?
 * I'd like to mention of the area of the pens but I can only seem to find the width (13.3 m). A photo of the STANDING sign would be very useful for the article, if copyright permission can be obtained. Roches (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first version flowed slightly better, but I have kept the gist of the amendments. — TPX 22:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is another amendment I wish to see made: "Instead of delaying the start of the game to ensure the safe passage of supporters into the ground, at 2:52 pm, a gate was opened on the orders of senior police officers, admitting about 2,000 people." It is important to summarise the main errors as briefly as possible, including the failure to close the gate. — TPX 22:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should be included. I put part in bold and part in bold italics. The part in bold is not absolutely necessary in my opinion, as it may be clear that postponing kickoff would have allowed people to get in safely, but you may think otherwise. The bold italics part mentions the police failure to delay the start of the match but I added that SWFC could have done this. Question 11a in the new inquest states that SWFC should have requested a delay. The verdict states that this may have contributed, so it is not certain that it should be included here. Thanks for the other amendments as well. Roches (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead already suffers from extreme bloat due to the influx of edits since the end of the last inquiry and this proposal only adds to the problem. In particular it has become a dumping ground for what each editor feels was the central cause of the disaster. These problems are too complicated to be addressed within the lead. There are also a number of causes that remain omitted such as the failure to close the central tunnel. Perhaps the bigger problem is that it means that the only direct cause is lost in the middle of the paragraph. It would suggest that the whole section from "The fatal crush occurred..." to "...pens 3 and 4." Should be replaced with a paraphrasing of what the jury agreed were the basic facts of the disaster

...[The disaster was] due to crushing in the central pens of the Leppings Lane terrace, following the admission of a large number of supporters to the stadium through exit gates.

In addition, the paragraph contains peripheral details such as the fact that it was held at a neutral venue. The final sentence does not need to explain the intricacies of English law and can be shortened to "The jury found that the 96 deaths were the verdict of Unlawful Killing". Also the discussion of subsequent inquests represents a change in subject so therefore be given their own paragraph. Eckerslike (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The central causes of the disaster are identified by countless reliable sources like this one. Once formatted into four paragraphs it won't appear so bloated. Let me try. — TPX 10:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hillsborough disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/911825-david-bernstein-makes-unreserved-apology-for-hillsborough-disaster

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed re-ordering
I only came to this article for the first time yesterday, and don't want to 'step on anyone's toes', however I am suggesting putting all inquests, official enquiries, legal reviews into chronological order (after the present description of the events and victims sections). At present the two inquests are tucked into 'Charges against officials', at the tail of the article, which appears to me to be incorrect factually and in terms of importance. I also propose to rename "Charges against officials" to "Criminal and civil cases". I also noticed that there is no section or text about the role of West Midlands Police, which is fairly important for understanding the whole legal story. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also copied ALL the Taylor report section to Taylor Report, as a prelude to 'paring' down the section on this article to its essentials. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have restored the section about the effect the disaster had on stadium design in the UK. It is definately on topic as it is the biggest single consequence of the disaster. Eckerslike (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Eckerslike, at present this article is at least double the max. recommended length, the Taylor Report article (until today), had nothing about the inquiry or report or effects of the report. Why do we have an article about the report if we put all the content here?


 * At the same time, the two coroner's inquests and IPCC inquiry are 'tucked away' at the bottom in completely inapt sections, and there is no mention of the West Midlands Police's involvement anywhere. Would you at least agree that the 'changes to stadium design' should be heavily pruned with the details on the 'report' article? Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree with pruning. I have taken out the middle paragraph and a sentence that detailed a peculiar and unnessary detail about Berwick Rangers. I agree that the article and its lead in particular is too long. There seems to be excessive quoting directly from the Taylor report where paraphrasing would surfice. Another section that needs serious attention is the excessive attention payed to every contraversy surrounding the disaster. Eckerslike (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (nb edit conflict) I took the precaution of copying ALL the report material onto that article. I was thinking of reducing the report content here to Taylor's conclusions, paraphrased rather than the to-and-fro of his detailed arguments/response to police evidence. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've sandboxed the Taylor Report section of this article here, anybody is welcome to assist in pruning it, or commenting on my pruning so far. Intention is, as above to reduce to Taylor's principal conclusions and criticisms. Pincrete (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As you are thinking about restructuring the article. A problem I have always had with the article, is that the reference to the Taylor Report is buried, yet there are several short form references to it, both before and after that buried reference. May be it is time to extract the main reference from the rest and then always use the short form referencing to refer to it. May be even to use the sfn or harvnb templates to form a link. Keith D (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Errrrrrr don't know how to do that! Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Minor technicality
I notice that each coroner's 'inquest', was actually technically 'inquests' (ie covering each of many deaths), sources seem to alternate between singular and plural and IMO it would be confusing to refer to each in plural. Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hillsborough disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2012/09/20/news-Sky-Blues-fans-recall-Hillsborough-choas-50631.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2012/09/12/news-Hillsborough-warning-signs-were-there-in-1987---report-50174.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/911825-david-bernstein-makes-unreserved-apology-for-hillsborough-disaster
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226000421/http://www.redimps.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10440~1498199%2C00.html to http://www.redimps.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10440~1498199%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/hillsboroughresearch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hillsborough disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061204011259/http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline%3Dex-sun-editor--i-was-right-on-hillsborough%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D18190784%26siteid%3D50061-name_page.html to http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline%3Dex-sun-editor--i-was-right-on-hillsborough%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D18190784%26siteid%3D50061-name_page.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017
I wish to edit the site so that I can include the latest charges brought by the CPS. 109.148.252.196 (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the instructions in the template that you have just added to this talk page. Britmax (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note, this is already in the article (in Criminal prosecutions), and mentioned in the lead:'' On 28 June 2017, it was announced that six people were to be charged with offences in relation to the disaster. Former Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, in charge of the match, faces 95 counts of manslaughter by gross negligence. He faces no charge in respect of the death of Tony Bland, who died four years after the disaster. Former Chief Inspector Sir Norman Bettinson faces four counts of misconduct in public office. Former Sheffield Wednesday F.C. Club Secretary Graham Mackrell faces a charge of breaching the Safety at Sports Ground Act 1975. Solicitor Peter Metcalf, former Chief Superintendent Donald Denton and former Detective Chief Inspector Alan Foster were all charged with perverting the course of justice. ' Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. You have to create an account, have 4 edits and 10 edits on the account and then you can edit. — MRD 20  14  01:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017
Please change:

"Of those who died, 78 were aged 30 or younger. 38 of the victims were children or teenagers, and all but three of them were aged under 50.[71]"

To: "Of those who died, 78 were aged 30 or younger. 38 of the victims were children or teenagers, and all but three of the victims were aged under 50.[71]"

Or some such.

--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:BE (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:BE (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Changed to: Of those who died, 78 were aged under 30, 38 of whom were under 20, and all but three of the victims were aged under 50. Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Input sought regarding SYMAS response wording
In editing a section of the article under the 'Crush' subheading, I noticed a point of confusion re: SYMAS's response (South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service). It states that police kept ambulances from "entering the stadium" (the pitch) but according to TROFHIP's findings the area behind the gymnasium was an already-agreed-upon loading point for SYMAS. How it's worded now, it implies that ambulances ought to have been brought onto the pitch -- and yet that was never meant to be part of the disaster protocol (e.g., ambulances inside the stadium as opposed to parked outside the gymnasium).
 * QUERY: I intend to change how this is worded in order to clarify the difference between unfollowed policies and unavoided practices. Stating that the police didn't let ambulances through seems at best vague and at worst a non sequitur. I pause here, briefly, for any input. Thx —— Spin tendo Talk 21:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * RESOLUTION: I've revised the section's language accordingly. Previously, the police were described as "keeping ambulances off of the pitch." This was incorrect. Rather, it was the collective police/SYMAS confusion which kept ambulances off of the pitch — confusion over where exactly injured people were to be moved to. In any event, the disaster protocol laid out at the time never proscribed situations where ambulances were to be brought onto the pitch, as this was thought at the time to be slow and ineffective on a mass scale (and later proven to be so, by the disaster). Spin tendo Talk 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't formed an opinion on the 'main change' yet, but think that moving "BBC television cameras were at the ground to record the game for ... " to 'pole position' is a very bad idea. That the event was televised live is incidental to what happened. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hillsborough disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721090718/http://www.espnstar.com/football/fa-cup/news/detail/item247176/Reds-united-in-demanding-justice/ to http://www.espnstar.com/football/fa-cup/news/detail/item247176/Reds-united-in-demanding-justice/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616185839/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=21703&sectioncode=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=21703&sectioncode=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Where to put 2016 doctor's testimony
User:Limhey, why do you prefer to describe doctors as "medically qualified fans"  (St John's Ambulance men?), why do you prefer to remove the information that they were actually INSIDE the stadium on the day? Why do you remove a ref which links to detailed testimony both gave in 2016 and which is quite forensic in its criticism of the emergency response? Most importantly of all, why is it better to put their testimony in a section about an inquiry which they did not attend and with text which refers to a second inquest which the reader has not even yet been informed of?

The whole Hillsborough story, including that of these two men, is a story of evidence coming fully to light, or acquiring further ramifications, or being fully endorsed, many years after the event. If we 'fast-forward' every time an event has repercussions further down the line, the chronology (which is already fiendishly complicated), will be completely lost. I cannot see any advantage except to discredit Popper at the first opportunity, as opposed to advancing the whole narrative in sequence, which - at the very least - has the effect of questioning how thorough/neutral Popper was.

BTW Phillips, does not quite say "the exclusion of their evidence demonstrated that the original inquest was 'coloured and flawed' from the outset", what he actually says is "I cannot fathom why he didn’t call us, other than he specifically did not want to hear our evidence, in which case the first inquests were coloured and flawed before they even started.” ie IF he just didn't want to hear the evidence - the inquest was flawed from the start. Also the coroner's letter does not say that the doctor's were 'specifically excluded', it says Popper did not intend to call them. It's bad enough that Popper failed to call two highly knowledgable key witnesses, we don't have to 'beef it up'. Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Pincrete Apols for removing those links - that was not intended.

The term 'medically qualified' is entirely appropriate as it means medical practitioners registered with the GMC. 'Doctors' is a more generic term and could describe someone with a PhD, or these days a dentist. Being a St Johns ambulance man does not describe being a medical practitioner - far from it; unless of course he/she was additionally registered with the GMC. Ironic that you mention St Johns ambulance men. If you read all the documents they show that Taylor rejected Phillips's claim about an empty oxygen cylinder on the basis of the statement and testimony of Peter Wells, the StJ divisional officer. At Warrington, Phillips, with video evidence (not presented at the Taylor inquiry), successfully refuted Wells's false claims. Additionally he stated that he disagreed with almost everything Wells had stated including his untrue claim that he had assisted Phillips.


 * The timeline concept is interesting, however the fact that Popper excluded them should be in the paragraph about him and his inquest, not potentially hidden in another following section. Mr and Mrs Jones's question of his intentions, and his cited reply are clearly in the correct place in terms of the narrative. It follows that further comment on them follows directly from this. I clearly edited Phillips's comments but the words in quotes were as stated. In my view the fact that he confirmed that he was not calling two individuals specifically in reply to the letter from Mr & Mrs Jones equates to him specifically excluding them.


 * Also in connection with the timeline is the fact that although the Popper inquests were opened after the disaster they were adjourned immediately. They recommenced in 1990 after the Taylor report had been published.


 * As for 'beefing up' Popper's incompetence I feel that would be entirely justified as it is entirely so. I suspect the families of victims would endorse this. However I do not feel that reporting demonstrable fact amounts to 'beefing up'.


 * It would be appropriate to add their testimony in other sections. (Limhey (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC))


 * The exclusion of the evidence of these two medical practitioners perhaps provides a small snapshot of the dubious motives of the various authorities in Sheffield in 1989. Both had their opinions regarding the emergency response rejected (wrongly) by Taylor. This should not have led Popper to not call them. His duty was to examine what had happened to each individual victim. He should have separated the issues and called them as directly involved clinicians with important first hand evidence of the circumstances of some of the deaths. There is an interesting paradox with regard to Phillips not being called. At the approximately the same time he was thanked personally by Mervyn Jones, Assistant Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, for his assistance with the investigation. (Limhey (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC))


 * I disagree on quite a number of details ... regardless of one's feelings (and it is difficult to not be deeply shocked by both the incompetence on the day by police, and appalled at the subsequent 'dirty tricks' to evade responsibility), regardless of all this, it is our job to present a calm coherent account to readers who - we should assume - have never heard of Hillsborough. For reasons which I don't need to go into, I was probably the last person in the UK to hear about the event - I'm not a football fan of any kind but picked up updates over the years, and relatively recently, saw a number of very detailed documentaries. I was curious about what WP had to say, but when I came to the article, I found a relatively muddled narrative, which was difficult for me to follow - a UK person, familiar with the outline of the story, and aware of the depth of anger, even if I did not know/remember all the details. Part of the problem is seemed to me was that every new detail had been added in 'pole position', as the story unfolded, and overall structure had been lost. When everything tries to be prominent - nothing is.


 * I agree that the doctors were 'excluded' (opposite of 'included'), but we can't pass comment on that exclusion, even implicitly. We can't say that Taylor 'wrongly' dismissed their testimony because that is passing a judgement - which no authorative source has made - it's our private judgement (and probably one the reader will come to unaided anyway). There is a subtle difference between what the doctor said and what we quote. There is another quote which might serve better anyway, since the Dr says "I cannot fathom why he didn’t call us, other than he specifically did not want to hear our evidence".


 * I've changed 'medically qualified' to 'qualified doctors' - since I think your term is actually vague, it could mean a nurse, a paramedic, anyone with some sort of training, whereas these guys knew what they were talking about medically. I'm not going to get into an edit war about this, but don't agree with many of the details of what you say - and don't think that it is our job to pass judgement or 'speak up for' the relatives. The bare fscts expressed neutrally do a pretty good job of damning some of those involved in this depressing saga IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete I do think we can state the Taylor was wrong regarding his ruling against their criticism of the emergency services. They were the only two 'qualified doctors' to go publicly on the record immediately after the event criticising the emergency services response. Taylor exonerated the services. The outcome of the HIP report and the Warrington inquests - authoritative sources, the latter carrying superseding legal precedence over Taylor's ruling - demonstrated clearly that his judgment on that matter had been wrong and their views were in the main vindicated. I think any version of Phillips's quote should include the clear implications that he felt Popper's decision was a 'serious error of judgement' and the inquests were 'coloured and flawed'.

Which details do you disagree with? What is not neutral? (Limhey (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC))

Pincrete I too do not wish to enter an edit war; however I disagree with your removal of the fact that both Drs Ashton and Phillips were Liverpool fans. I feel you demonstrate that you have possibly not yet grasped the enormity of the antipathy of the various Sheffield authorities towards Liverpool fans in the aftermath. If so you are missing the very important 'us and them' mood of the time and for many years that followed. It is likely that their being from Merseyside contributed to their exclusion but we cannot prove it. In the news at the time and after the verdicts, in papers, TV, and radio, emphasis was placed on them being Liverpool fans. As a compromise I shall add that they were 'Merseyside doctors' as in the cited article.(Limhey (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC))


 * I didn't understand your logic for including that the Drs were 'Scousers', nor do I think the ordinary reader would understand it, nor is it appropriate for us to seek to imply that thia was the reason for their being excluded. AFAI can see, the exclusion of two medical experts, who had been there and actually taken part in the 'rescue effort' and seen how chaotic it was, would be odd - even if they were from Watford. However your compromise - 'Merseyside doctors' - is a good one and I am happy with it. If someone - such as the families group, or panel - believes that testimony was excluded solely/mainly because they were Liverpudlians - we can state it as their opinion, but shouldn't try to imply it ourselves. Personally, I had always assumed that anyone who didn't endorse the 'official position', was likely to be excluded or marginalised or discredited - wherever they were from - including some junior police, though I understand why feelings are/were so intense in Merseyside.


 * We can't say Taylor was wrong to dismiss the Drs, we can say person X/ body Y concluded he was wrong, but on the whole I don't think it necessary or worthwhile. If I remember correctly, Taylor dismissed their evidence because he thought they were too emotionally involved. It may be obvious to you and I that this is a fairly patronising/dismissive judgement to make of the two people best equipped to give evidence, but I think the reader will probably come to the decision unaided by us that - at the very least - it was an odd thing for Taylor to conclude.


 * I may have been wrong to try to move your additions - because of the muddled state of the article when I first came to it, my instinct was to put everything in time order, I don't now think that your additions 'muddle' the chronology - but perhaps fresh eyes are needed. BTW, there is no need to 'name' me, the article is on my watchlist so I see any changes/messages fairly quickly. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Taylor made no mention of them being 'too emotionally involved'. Taylor was subsequently proven wrong about his criticism and dismissal of Ashton's opinions. In the cited Liverpool Echo 'vindication' article we read how damaging that criticism was to him personally and his career in public health. Taylor disagreed with Phillips on the matter of defibrillators. This was a matter of opinion rather than fact. The immediate growth in availability and use of such equipment in public places tends to suggest that Taylor was wrong. In an organised speedy response they may have been useful. In fact some were used unsuccessfully (other than as 'paddle checks') by ambulance crews outside the stadium. Taylor perversely rules that they would have been dangerous in the 'chaos' of the response but then excuses that chaos in his emergency service no fault ruling. On the subject of Phillips's claim that he was provided with an empty oxygen cylinder, Taylor ruled against him entirely upon the statements and testimony (later totally disproved at Warrington) of St J Amb Div. Officer Wells; he also remarked that Phillips 'may have been mistaken as to the cylinder of which he complains being empty. He agreed he was under great pressure, in an awkward situation; his head was injured and he became very angry at what he regarded then as wholly the fault of the police'. For 'may' read 'may not'.

Thanks for your continuing interest in and contributions to this important topic (Limhey (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC))

It is astonishing even now that Popper only called ONE of the many Drs present that day to his resumed inquests - the SWFC club doctor.

There were many more Drs present including a Professor of Surgery, Tim Cooke (another Liverpool fan) who also made criticisms of the response in their statements to Taylor. Why would a medically qualified coroner not want to hear all of the medical witness testimony available? What possible motive would he have for excluding such important and valid evidence? Ashton and Phillips were not mavericks - they concurred with the majority view of their profession. His witness list is a disgrace. Part of the cover up? Little (no) doubt here. (Limhey (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC))

Popper was aware in June 1989 that Dr Ashton had phoned his office requesting to be called to the inquests. (Limhey (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018
Under Prosecutions add in information from 29/6/2018 about a judge lifting the historical stay on further prosecutions. The result of this is that David Duckenfield - the Hillsborough Match Commander at the disaster - is to face troel for the manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 Liverpool supporters.

Reference:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hillsborough-police-manslaughter-charges-david-duckenfield-liverpool-fans-death-preston-court-a8422666.html Adampr89 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is already included "On 29 June 2018, a ruling was made that Duckenfield would be prosecuted on the manslaughter charges".Pincrete (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * a reliable source was included with the request., it's currently ref [186], which I added. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Important radio programme?
Shouldn't a link to this BBC Reunion programme from 2009 be included (I suggest changing the current televison and theatre section to "radio, television and theatre"):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jlxjp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.236.40.77 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Testbed (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Link goes to Liverpool Echo homepage
It can be found near Brown was about to become a father. (78.17.100.83 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

Requests for changes
Requests for change, since the article is protected: First, I think the last sentence of the introduction (about 6 people being charged in June 2017) should be cut or replaced. Since all the prosecutions have now been resolved, the article should reflect this. Second, the "sub judice" tag on the talk page should be removed, since the court cases have now been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.163.6 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sub judice notice also refers to the ongoing enquiry, which has similar status to that of a Court of Law. Therefore the notice will stay as a reminder to editors to use due caution when editing the article.
 * Scrub the above, I was getting confused with another article. Yes, the notice can be removed. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Image Inaccuracy
The diagram image of the area of the incident in citation 30 is both an incorrect rendering of the scene and not actually a proper citation of the source. The source cited is not an image, but a video. Upon further examination, said video does not contain the cited image. Rather, the image included in this article is a poor rendering of the diagram seen at 3:03 in the video. Furthermore, the diagram seen in the video is intended to show the flow of foot traffic. It is clearly not intended to be a fully accurate rendering of the scene of the incident. As such, the reproduced image show in this article is misrepresenting itself as an accurate diagram of the scene. This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but the accurate rendering of the scene is crucial in this instance; a reader cannot properly understand the dynamics of a large human crush without a clear diagram of the scene.

The main reason this is such an important issue is that the Hillsborough Disaster was subject to cover ups and public misinformation in the decades following it. The image in this article would lead a reader to believe that one could not walk directly from "turnstiles A-G" to "Pens 1&2" when there is in fact a clear path. As seen at 5:16 in this video, which is video evidence of the scene provided to inquest jurors. At that time mark, you can clearly see a path along the Gate C wall leading to Pens 1 & 2.

I recommend removing this image in favor of a better rendering. Alternatively, the creator could update the image to accurately reflect the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:146:300:9A30:9009:FB27:8BB3:3E7 (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Too long?
I disagree that the article is either too long, or difficult to navigate. Yes, it is long, but that is the nature of these things. It is not hard to navigate, as the TOC allows for easy navigation. The editor who placed the template did not bother to set out their reasons for adding it. I propose that it is removed. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, while there may be individual sections which could be copy-edited/pruned a little - there is neither substantial repetition/excess info nor is easy to see what rational splitting into sub-articles could be performed. The disaster itself, and even more its aftermath is a long sad, sorry story - and article length reflects that. Pincrete (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Documents not destroyed?
Mjroots, regarding this addition, I cannot find anywhere any reference to documents not being destroyed being part of the judges logic for acquittal. Gdn and BBC simply state that because the inquiry wasn't a court of law, there could not possibly be any perversion of justice - implying therefore that ANY misrepresentation of evidence, regardless of how intentional it had been, would not have been an offence. I attempted to read the judgement as well, which contains defences of 'misrepresentations' by solicitors and others, but I could not find it explicitly said that the survival of the original documents was part of the judge's logic for acquittal. I don't doubt that if the three, or anyone, HAD physically destroyed evidence, the accusation MIGHT have been different - but I simply don't see where it is part of the judge's reason for acquittal in THIS instance - which is strongly implied by "The original statements had not been destroyed. Consequently a course of public justice could not have been perverted". Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reference [198] (the transcript of the ruling by Mr Justice Davis), para 53. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, I may have inadvertently put words into Mr Justice Davis's mouth. Reworded to say that it was documented that the originals were not destroyed. My gut feeling is that if they had been, it would have severely impacted on the case for the defence, but I'm not a lawyer. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you mean para 73. I hope you don't mind, but I've moved and slightly clarified your text. The "documents not destroyed" point seems an additional reason, rather than the main logic of why there was no perversion of justice. I'm a layman also, but what is mind-blowing to most of us is the idea that a solicitor and senior police can instruct subordinates to alter their testimony to a public inquiry with impunity - to advise them of their right to say nothing is understandable - but this is bizarre, why call police as witnesses at all? Pincrete (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Police Statements
The references to altered police statements manage to imply something sinister in this fact. The investigations however revealed the reasons for all the changes made to the draft police witness statements. The originals were littered with bad language and personal opinion rather than being professionally-worded direct accounts of what officers had personally done and what they had personally seen. It was these surprisingly-amateurish first attempts at writing witness statements which seems to have led to 'editing' being advised. The fact that so many officers didn't know how to write a proper witness statement is of course in itself quite damning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is explicitly acknowledged that the main intent and effect of the alterations, was to hide any failures or culpability of police. To pretend that it was to tidy up poor English, or to censor-out any 'colourful' or emotive language is dishonest and plain silly. Most human beings would get a little emotional if they realised that they had just, inadvertently perhaps, contributed to the hideous deaths of nearly 100 members of the public who they were ostensibly protecting. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

30th anniversary?
I see that the article talks about the 10th and 20th anniversary, but has anything happened on the 30th anniversary (2019)?

Here are some sources that talk about it: The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/apr/15/liverpool-remembers-hillsborough-victims-on-30th-anniversary-of-disaster CNN - https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/sport/hillsborough-liverpool-stadium-30th-anniversary-gbr-spt-intl/index.html BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-47933911 (and https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-47912890) Liverpool FC - https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/345294-lfc-to-mark-30th-anniversary-of-hillsborough

And goes on...

So, is there going to be a mention of this in the article? RandomEditorAAA (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Devine

 * With the sad passing of Andrew Devine, ruled by the coroner to be an unlawful death caused by injuries sustained at Hillsborough, I have updated the death toll to 97 in line with a statement issued by Liverpool F.C. recognising him as such, using this statement as the citation. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster and The Sun § Information flow
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hillsborough disaster and The Sun § Information flow. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
I think Steven Cohen (soccer) should be merged into this article on the grounds of WP:BLP1E. There is very little verifiable information about the subject and any sources that indicate any level of notability are dedicated to his comments concerning this single event. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't even think it's worth merging, unless we're going to include every vaguely prominent figure to have made stupid comments about the disaster. Would favour deletion of the Cohen article rather than merging. --OGBC1992 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: I think the same as OGBC1992 to be honest. It'd clutter the article to non end, and he isn't worth mentioning in this article. --MattBinYYC (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that I started a deletion discussion about the article here, should've mentioned this here as I opened it so I'll ping in case they want to weigh in there as well. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: Agreed, nothing worth merging. Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)