Talk:Hillsborough disaster

"Behaviour of fans" inaccuracy and undue weight

Under the heading "Taylor inquiry: Behaviour of fans", it states "Lord Taylor concluded that the behaviour of Liverpool fans, including accusations of drunkenness, were secondary factors, and said that most fans were: 'not drunk, nor even the worse for drink'. He concluded that this formed an exacerbating factor but that police, seeking to rationalise their loss of control, overestimated the element of drunkenness in the crowd. The report dismissed the theory, put forward by South Yorkshire Police, that fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets were contributing factors."
This is the only separate heading in the article which explicitly purports to address the actual behavior of fans, but that it does not do; it only says that they were not drunk, and that forged tickets were not an issue. It says nothing about the behavior of the fans (it is quite possible to misbehave while sober, and while using legitimate tickets). My concern is that that the summation as presented will give undue weight to one report's findings (and given how unreliable assertions were shown to be in parts of all of the reports, that is problematic). For example, under the heading "Before the disaster: Venue" it states "At the time of the disaster, most English football stadiums had high steel fencing between the spectators and the playing field in response to pitch invasions. Hooliganism had affected the sport for some years, and was particularly virulent in England. From 1974, when these security standards were put in place, crushes occurred in several English stadiums." And under the heading "Disaster: Build up" it states "Opposing supporters were segregated, as is common at domestic matches in England...Although Liverpool had more supporters, Nottingham Forest was allocated the larger area, to avoid the approach routes of rival fans crossing." These certainly give a vivid impression that the misbehavior of fans was both well-established and common, and that it actually required structural differences in the way attendees were accommodated (seemingly unique among all spectator sports). So characterizing the "behaviour of fans" as somehow being benign due to the absence of drunkenness or forged tickets, is nonsensical. Either the heading should more accurately reflect the content, or the content should actually address the claim made in the heading. Bricology (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The section you refer to is specifically about the Taylor Report so it summarises the findings of that report. We also include the Stuart-Smith scrutiny and the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, summarising what came out of those two as well. It sounds as if you are proposing we introduce a new section analysing the behaviour of the fans in general. Do you really think that would be fair and appropriate in this article? With respect, I suggest that that's a rabbit hole we do not want to go down! Considering there's a separate Taylor Report article that goes into more detail about his findings, we should probably cut this section down anyway, including the removal of the contentious subsection that you refer to (which does seem to stick out like a sore thumb). Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the section does not need expanding, in fact the Behaviour section is very succinct about Taylor's main findings. I think Bricology is implying that we should go 'fishing' for behavioural factors that Taylor didn't specifically refute. That isn't how we work. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2022

Fans in the stadium were literally crushed to death. EpicBlockClutch (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

January 2024

Re this edit: the sourcing does not say this, nor did the coroner's inquests. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes they did. I quote from the following source: "The jury found match commander Ch Supt David Duckenfield was "responsible for manslaughter by gross negligence" due to a breach of his duty of care."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36138337 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.205.157 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024

The first paragraph currently reads: "This resulted in overcrowding of those pens and the crush." It should instead read "This act of gross negligence resulted in overcrowding of those pens and the crush."

That is what the inquest found, as per the source provided above. The previous person (who removed my edit) has not responded to my source. I can only presume he therefore accepts that he was wrong and that there is no further valid objection to this edit. 143.58.205.157 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD already says "The second coroner's inquests were held from 1 April 2014 to 26 April 2016. They ruled that the supporters were unlawfully killed owing to grossly negligent failures by police and ambulance services to fulfil their duty of care." Anyone with an attention span long enough to read the entire lead rather than just the opening paragraph will come across the phrase "gross negligence".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. How come you didn't know that then, when you were falsely asserting above that the sourcing did not support my edit?

Could that be because you hadn't actually read the full paragraph yourself and thus didn't actually know the full picture?

Thus, I think you've just demonstrated my point for me: this critical information needs to be stated up front so that it isn't missed (Personal attack removed). 143.58.205.157 (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Already answered. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Get over it. Move on. Your attitude will get you absolutely nowhere. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Soetermans. You like throwing around links to pages (without making an actual argument). So I've done some reading, and I have a page to throw back at you. This one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling

That page perfectly describes you (and IanMacM). The following passages are particularly pertinent.

"Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion.

Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo) – and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists.

...

In multiple stalled discussions, proponents of the change are likely to make patient and good faith repeated attempts to discuss the substantive points at issue. Trying different approaches, some posts might get long and repetitive. So another diverting/delaying tactic used at such a point is for the stonewallers to accuse the frustrated proponents of change of too much editing, either in the form of tendentious editing, or battleground mentality, or making TLDR or WP:DE/WP:IDHT posts."

Sorry, but I'm not giving in to your stonewalling. You are wrong. You and IanMacM both know you're wrong. That's why you both tried to censor me earlier by removing my comment. Neither of you have ever produced any substantive rationale as to why my proposed edit should not be allowed. The best you could do was assert that my edit was factually inaccurate. And when I debunked that, you had nothing. 143.58.205.157 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is edit protected. Others disagree with you. Move on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

And do not change the request again. It has been answered. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your status quo stonewalling. If you wish to contribute something productive to this discussion, feel free to do so. 143.58.205.157 (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is largely a stylistic decision, it's perfectly normal, and IMO reads well to first say what happened at an event, whether natural or man-made, then to say what caused it and who or what was to blame. 143.58.205.157, you want to turn that on its head and ascribe blame before informing what the blame is for. I agree with the others, this wouldn't be an improvement and is somewhat clumsy English. Pincrete (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)