Talk:Hillsborough disaster

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

Human Stampede link at bottom of page[edit]

The link to 'human stampede' at the bottom of this page needs to be removed. Hillsborough was NOT a human stampede - the Hillsborough Independent Report has proven this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnefox (talkcontribs) 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You can edit this yourself, be bold! Note though that the list at the bottom is a template so removing that template from this article won't removed the link to here in that template. Talk pages for the template and other articles/categories that list Hillsborough as a "human stampede": Template talk:Human stampedes; Talk:Stampede; Talk:List of human stampedes; and Category talk:Human stampedes in the United Kingdom.
For what it's worth, they seem to be categorising any event where the weight of crowd numbers leads to death or injury as a stampede - and Hillsborough seems to fit this definition (it doesn't necessarily imply the crowd was at fault, either, merely that the pressure of numbers caused a problem). Probably worth starting some discussion on those talk pages, or maybe start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management and then linking to it on the talk pages. (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I see you've already left a comment on Talk:Stampede. However if you reply to a very old comment (from 2008 in this case) the chances are that nobody will read it. If you want to raise discussions before making changes, start a new subject. And you're more likely to get some discussion if you mention it to a WikiProject (like the one linked above).
Alternatively, just be bold and make the changes yourself (leaving a message on the talk page of someone who left a comment in 2008 and requesting they make an edit that you could make yourself is definitely not the way to do it). If you do edit the articles, have a read of WP:BRD and be prepared for some discussion. Also, it's worth reading WP:SIG - signing your posts is easy and makes the discussion easier to follow. (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a big discussion about the word "stampede" right now on Talk:2015 Mina stampede, accompanying an effort by a minority of editors, including me, to have the article changed to the more neutral "2015 Mina disaster". Unfortunately, it seems to me English media learned very little from the Hillsborough disaster and the initial vilification of Liverpool supporters (who were frequently characterized as "animals"). English media are quite sensitive to disasters in Denmark or Germany, but consistently and blithely choose the word "stampede" to describe progressive crowd collapse disasters in India, the Far East, Africa, and the Middle East. "Progressive crowd collapse" is the correct term, but it lacks the desired connotation of animalistic brutality, deliberate trampling, indifference to human life, etc., all of which seem to be desirable when English media (including the BBC) describe people of non-European descent caught in guiltless circumstances very similar to Hillsborough. When it comes to people of color and particularly people of non-Christian backgrounds, de-humanization of the victims is key, and the word "stampede" is sufficient to do that. It also absolves English-language reporters of responsibility to ask deeper questions or do more thorough reporting. So what if academic experts on crowd crush disasters universally condemn the use and connotations of the word "stampede"? So what if these same experts have pointed out, time and time again, that the supposed "threat" from the panicking crowd was precisely the reason why help and relief was so slow to come to the victims of Hillsborough, and the very language we use to describe these crowd phenomena ("panic", "stampede", etc) hinders and inhibits the understanding of both crowd control officials and response from emergency medical teams?

Crowd crushes and progressive crowd collapse disasters are on the increase, can happen anywhere, and happen to real people. As for the "stampede" of ignorant English-language journalists, it will apparently not soon be stopped Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent comment. I agree with every word. Wikipedia should be looking very hard at no longer using the word "stampede" for these events. Even disregarding the idea of it being used in a bigoted way, it carries clear connotations of the responsibility being on people in the crowd wantonly trampling others, and more importantly, is completely inaccurate, as no "stampeding" goes on or could go on when people are so densely packed that they cannot move or even breathe. Last I checked, the concept of a "human stampede" actually shares a page with the one for an animal stampede, complete with a picture of horses at the top. They are completely different kinds of events. MrBook (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is its editors, if you want this changing then you need to set it in motion yourselves. The template that appears on this page is separate to it, so discussing it here can only result in it being removed from this page (and the template would still include this article). When this was first raised I posted some links, above, to pages and template where changes could be discussed. I suggest you both start up discussions at those links. (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the category and template from this article and removed this article from the template. I'd encourage everyone commenting here to at least watchlist Template:Human stampedes and preferably to use your knowledge to judiciously remove other articles from it and engage in the other discussions mentioned. NebY (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Update: Two weeks ago I renamed List of human stampedes as List of human crushes. Having had no complaints, reverts or feedback, I've now gone ahead and changed Template:Human stampedes to Template:Human crushes. If that change sticks, then I suggest we could add this article to it again and place the template at the foot of this article again. NebY (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Steven Cohen[edit]

Added Cohen to controversies. He has a page of his own which also deals with the matter. Limhey (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

John Williams[edit]

Added local Liverpool journalist to controversies. Limhey (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Table of homes[edit]

I appreciate Eckerslike's attempt to keep the table of homes of victims relatively compact and Kieronoldham's concern that it could be confusing, e.g. by showing the number of victims from Runcorn and Warrington as 4. Would this modification of Eckerslike's table do? I've inserted "each" on four lines and (more trivially) removed the sorting capability.

Home Number of victims
Liverpool 37
Rest of Greater Merseyside 20
Runcorn, Warrington 4 each
Leicester, Sheffield 3 each
Chester, Pinner, Preston, Skelmersdale, Wigan 2 each
Basildon, Bristol, Bromsgrove, Bury, Cannock, Clwyd, Gloucester, Keighley, Leigh, London, St Albans, Stockport, Stoke-on-Trent, Swanwick, Wrexham 1 each

NebY (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Think I would prefer the longer table which gives 1 line per place as it gives you the chance to have a county and the sorting facility allows you to view by place order. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that is is largely non-notable information. Too have such a large section on it is excessive. While the geographical distribution of the victims will be of interest the table does little to portray this. It uses a huge variety of locations from a village in Derbyshire (Swanwick) to the whole of Greater London as well as a location which is within London itself (Pinner) . As such it is not that useful for an encyclopedia. The data might be better presented in a couple sentences such as
All victims were from England and Wales with the majority from Liverpool (37) and Greater Merseyside (20). A further 17 were from counties adjacent to Merseyside...

Aggregating the data to county level and putting it on a map could also be used to present the information in a more concise manner. Eckerslike (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the couple-of-sentences approach would sit well in this article. It's true the long table allows sorting and detailing, but I still can't think why readers would sort the table or what the detail adds. The sentences outlined above actually provide a clearer, more encyclopedic picture. NebY (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have aggregated the data in the following way

Home Number of victims Aggregate
Liverpool 37 Liverpool
Rest of Greater Merseyside 20 Greater Merseyside
Runcorn, Cheshire 4 Adj. to Merseyside
Warrington, Cheshire 4 Adj. to Merseyside
Leicester, Leicestershire 3 Rest of England
Sheffield, Yorkshire 3 Sheffield
Chester, Cheshire 2 Adj. to Merseyside
Pinner, Middlesex 2 Rest of England
Preston, Lancashire 2 Adj. to Merseyside
Skelmersdale, Lancashire 2 Adj. to Merseyside
Wigan, Greater Manchester 2 Adj. to Merseyside
Basildon, Essex 1 Rest of England
Bristol, Avon 1 Rest of England
Bromsgrove, Worcestershire 1 Rest of England
Bury, Greater Manchester 1 Adj. to Merseyside
Cannock, Staffordshire 1 Rest of England
Clwyd, North Wales 1 Rest of England
Gloucester, Gloucestershire 1 Rest of England
Keighley, Yorkshire 1 Adj. to South Yorkshire
Leigh, Greater Manchester 1 Adj to Merseyside
London 1 Rest of England
St Albans, Hertfordshire 1 Rest of England
Stockport, Greater Manchester 1 Adj. to Merseyside
Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire 1 Rest of England
Swanwick, Derbyshire 1 Adj. to South Yorkshire
Wrexham, North Wales 1 Adj. to Merseyside

Feel free to check my figures (I've only got a bachelors in Maths so it's not in any way embarrassing if they're wrong). Eckerslike (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)