Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 1

message: It was odd to come here looking for information on the Hillsborough disaster to find that more than half of the article is about an article printed by the Sun newspaper. 
The Sun had no part in the disaster itself, and the disaster of its article is surely secondary.
213.48.36.65 21:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We still haven't got the balance right just yet I agree, but it has been improving. I am sure a spin-off article would be that great. Much better to continue to expand the main body more - and perhaps tighten the Sun section a little? Pcb21 Pete 22:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate page for connection with sun newspaper? 

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

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

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

message: One of the outcomes of the reports into the disaster was that kick-offs are delayed if fans are late arriving at the ground. Not sure if this should be included (or where).
:Wasn't that in the Taylor report?  If so it would be better to add it there. Dan1980 14:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delaying kick-offs

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

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

message: How does an article talking about Sun price cuts in 2006 which tangentially mentions Hillsborough demonstrate any of the things that it's supposed to in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.190.39 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenslade references (11 and 12) 

message: this site is the most interesting 1 out of them all what did the forest fans do did they try and help.connor age 11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.110.20 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it wasn't there, it's a troll - don't feed it :) Lion King 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because no police publicly backed up The Sun's story doesn't mean it wasn't true. They would have been afraid of violence from the public if they said anything. (Huey45 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So if a newspaper reported that a shop was robbed, but the shopkeeper says he wasn't robbed, and the seven people in his shop at the time also say no robbery took place this means the newspaper story is still true? NO ONE from the police, or the thousands of other people at the game ever reported anything like the sun said happen. Are you some kind of moron or what? ~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.136.249 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting 

message: I checked the "Hillsborough without tickets" sites, and they were mostly about Athens, and not Hillsborough. I will put the following quote here and a web page reference, which deals with the Hillsborough match:
"To-camera, Trevor reports an ambulanceman's recollection that preventable deaths were caused by lack of medical equipment and the failure to let ambulances onto the pitch. 
There follows a police cover-up. Traumatised officers are warned to not put anything in their notebooks, and although some officers ignore this, one later changes his statement during a court case after a call from a pathologist involved in the case. 
Relatives who have just identified bodies are asked [by the police] whether their loved ones had been drinking or had arrived without tickets. This becomes the constantly repeated defence by police, despite being dismissed by the official Taylor inquiry, which squarely blames police failure. As The Sun newspaper prints lies - which are seen to come from senior police briefings - about Liverpool fans stealing from and urinating on the dead the relatives are faced with not only burying their loved ones but also having to defend their reputations.
The families try legal action to make South Yorkshire police accountable for their negligence, but are disappointed because of legal points, such as the dismissal of deaths after 3.15pm after the disputed evidence of a pathologist, the absence of police video evidence, and the swaying of juries by repeated allegations about the dead." Hillsborough (1996)
This is the truth. I rest my case. egde 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The truth

message: There are hardly any cites in this entire page. Please put references in. And to say Liverpool fans were entirely blameless is one of the most blinkered things I have ever heard. 62.25.109.195 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALOL! I've seen it all now! An "editor" who has been repeatedly warned and blocked for vandalism, requesting references! Take your time and read the article, read the Taylor Report and you will discover that the Liverpool fans were completely exonerated - the only people who want to perpetuate this nonsense is the gutter scum press and it's faithful "readership" made up of Tit loving Mummy's boys with learing difficulties. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites 

message: "Following The Sun's report, the newspaper was boycotted by most newsagents in Liverpool, with many refusing to stock the tabloid and large numbers of readers cancelling orders and refusing to buy from shops which did stock the newspaper. The Hillsborough Justice Campaign also organised a national boycott which was less successful, but certainly hit the paper's sales as refected by a constant drop in price and free soft porn DVD offers.[6]"
erm, they wouldn't have had DVDs back then. Either this is a mistake for VHS or the writer is trying to imply that the Sun is STILL suffering the effects of that campaign and that is why they produce such DVD offers which would be hard to believe given that the sun is the UK's most popular national newspaper
erm, yes they are still suffering the effects  and the reference to DVD's reflects the present day format, of course there weren't DVD's in '89, it was Free "Magazines, followed by video and anything else that would retain the images of Soft porn. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD? 

message: There currently appears to an edit war going on concerning a minute's silence. Of course, this should be cited, but I guess it doesn't violate WP:BLP. On the other hand, in the overall scheme of things, is it notable enough for inclusion? It would be good if the two editors involved could discuss the issue here, as 3RR is about to be breached. The JPStalk to me 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not discussing anything with anyone that refers to my edits as vandalism, I've only ever requested that the user in question be civil and allow time for a source to be provided - is that really to much to ask for? Thanks, Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that there was a WP:AGF problem in some of the edit summaries. Still, WP:TEA. It's not harmful enough to warrant an immediate removal (tho' if I were a Man Utd fan I may feel differently: normally I'm up for anti Man-U bias, but I've got my admin hat on atm.). The JPStalk to me 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war about Man Utd/Sunderland game 

message: It says on the article that in conjunction with the Taylor Report that the last 'new ground' built with standing was Chester City, this isn't true as in recent years Burton Albion, Dartford FC & Northwich Victoria have all built new grounds with standing. 
It should be amended to be more specific or removed altogether I think. Alix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozzer cufc (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 December 2007
:WOOT Go Dartford! Lol.
:Anyway, I believe the Taylor's report was mainly on all-seater stadiums? Conay (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New grounds? 

message: *Part of the lead section reads, "...resulted in the conversion of many football stadiums in the United Kingdom to all-seater". The term 'all-seater' is not familiar to me as an American, non-football fan.  I think the lead section needs to be comprensible to someone new to the topic, like me.  Can you find some way to clarify the meaning of this term? ike9898 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you clarify? 

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

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

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

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

message: The photos on this page are all hopeless. They're too small to see a decent amount of detail. The one entitled "Hillsborough_disaster.jpg" is particularly useless since the crushing can't even be seen; just a bunch of people invading the field. (Huey45 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is finding images that are free of copyright.  Most available images are copyrighted by various newspapers or television organisations.  Understandably, most people who were close enough to take photographs that would display the gory detail you desire, were too busy escaping death to take any pictures.  Skinsmoke (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see his point.  Images with a higher definition would be preferable, the current ones aren't overly illustrative.  Surely so long as the definition is reduced from the original and its not quite the full portion then we are within the letter of the rules.  We might be able to get better images and remain within fair-use rules. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better photographs needed 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Resolved - File: ....  is sometimes the way to go - Youreallycan 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  chief superintendent Brian Mole 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hoardings would be correct usage. Keith D (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Advertising hoardings" or advertising boardings? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This needs a tag to indicate it is in the news

message: :This discussion is continued from Talk:Hillsborough Independent Panel#Redirect.
* 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merge from Hillsborough Independent Panel article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Missing from this article?

message: *September 2012 Hillsborough disaster report (7.25 megabytes). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New information source 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Sun on 13/9/12

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BBC Panorama - 20 May 2013 additions 

message: 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)
replies: text: May be you could give a couple of examples. Keith D (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal English? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Recentism in the lead

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  way to keep it up-to-date