Talk:Hillsborough disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Altered Police Witness statements[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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). (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 (talkcontribs) 09:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

2nd film[edit]

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

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

A proposed first paragraph[edit]

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[edit]

All editors are invited to make changes to the text below. I've used the citation needed flag{{cn}} 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) @CarryOnCharlie, Anthony Appleyard, and ThePowerofX: 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) @ThePowerofX:

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[edit]

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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

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