Talk:Hillsborough disaster

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

Mention of Heysel[edit]

It is generally uncontroversial and accepted that the Heysel disaster of 1985 was largely caused by some Liverpool supporters, and this led to a ban on British football clubs playing in Europe that was still in place at the time of the Hillsborough disaster. Further, it was partly responsible for much of the initial blame placed upon Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough and the suggestion of hooliganism in particular. Despite this, the only real mention of this in the article is in a brief explanation of the controversial remarks made by Jacques Georges. Should the Heysel disaster, both its causes and consequences for British football, be addressed properly, but succinctly, in the article, possibly in the section ‘Before the disaster’? (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can it be verified that "it was partly responsible for much of the initial blame..."? If we could cite sources then we might include it but otherwise it would be excluded as editorial theorising and speculation. NebY (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No, not unless reliable secondary sources have written an analysis showing the connection with this article (hint: there is no underlying connection, so that's not going to happen). Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I have found two references on the BBC website after a very simple search:
"A wave of hooliganism, with the Heysel incident of 1985 perhaps the most sickening episode, was justification enough for many who wanted to see football fans closely controlled. ... The 1989 image of football fans as scum - anti-social, violent young men who'd drunk too much - perhaps goes some way to explain the egregious behaviour of some of the emergency services and others after Hillsborough." [1]
"The prime minister was informed that a senior member of the Merseyside Police directly blamed supporters: "One officer, born and bred in Liverpool, said that he was deeply ashamed to say that it was drunken Liverpool fans who had caused this disaster, just as they had caused the deaths at Heysel."" [2]
I am sure there are many more if one takes the time to look further. (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an inquest in progress. The Attorney General has issued wide ranging guidelines about commenting online. . The thrust of this discussion is in danger of running foul of that directive. (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Should the Heysel disaster, both its causes and consequences for British football, be addressed properly, but succinctly...". Yes. Per 86.133's two examples, Heysel clearly formed part of the context in which Hillsborough was and has been considered. Many wikipedia articles lack context; those which include it are very much richer reading experiences. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an act of excessive simplification to isolate the behaviour of Liverpool supporters when discussing the English football ban. Hooliganism was a problem across the entire country for a lengthy period of time. Margaret Thatcher called it the "English disease", not the Liverpool disease. The steel fencing at Hillsborough stadium was erected long before 1985. The history of hooliganism is considerable and involves many different clubs; far beyond English boarders, even. We already have a paragraph in the section titled Before the disaster that summarises the situation as it stood in 1985:
"At the time of the disaster, most English football stadiums had high steel fencing between the spectators and the playing field in response to both friendly and hostile 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."
As I remarked previously, the Heysel incident is more relevant in providing the context for Police deception and obfuscation. It allowed senior officers to brush aside the previous overcrowding incidents at Hillsborough stadium and instead promote a fictitious narrative that there was something uniquely abhorrent about Liverpool fans (even when the club attracted broad support from across the nation, and a sad irony that a number of people who lost their lives that day didn't even come from Merseyside). Yet the tactic was successful for many years, and crops up occasionally even today. — TPX 23:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Length of the lead[edit]

The current lead is longer than usual, with three paragraphs to explain the disaster and three to explain subsequent developments. Should the final three paragraphs be shortened and possibly reduced to one or two paragraphs? (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a draft at the end of this discussion which looks good at first glance, but I still haven't got round to checking it against he existing lede and body. Could you do that? NebY (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The draft there seems to change a lot in the first three paragraphs. How about this [3] instead? (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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)


I propose a section to add to the "controversy" section about coverup. Popish Plot (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This would have problems with WP:WEIGHT because it is based on something that one person said, rather than widespread media coverage. There is also a lot of hearsay involved. Disclaimer: I do not roll up my trouser legs or give funny handshakes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that goes for everything else in the controversy section here? Popish Plot (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"Maxwell Groome, a constable at the time, said that after the disaster at the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Sheffield Wednesday’s football ground, “the word” inside the force was that freemason officers held a meeting to blame superintendent Roger Marshall." Not very substantial stuff, and probably not worth mentioning in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Popish Plot (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Popish Plot (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be surprising if someone did not say that there was a conspiracy or cover up. A single hearsay account does not have good verifiability or notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We have reliable sources about the latest info from the inquest and this wiki article is largely about said inquest. The article already says there were multiple failures and this helps explain why.Popish Plot (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This wiki article is not largely about the inquest, here is the entirety of what it says on the subject: "On 19 December 2012, a new inquest was granted in the High Court." Previous enquiries, of all types, are covered in detail, because they have reported. The same will apply to the inquest, which is ongoing, once the jury reach a conclusion and the coroner makes their report. This is in line with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT and also avoids the risk of prejudicing the inquest before it reaches its conclusions. WP:DUST is also a useful essay on these matters. The accusation may have been reported by reliable sources but it is still an accusation from a single person with no supporting evidence and no corroboration from other sources, that very much makes it a primary source especially as the newspapers are reporting it with no further comment or investigation as whether it may be true or not (again, to avoid the risk of prejudicing the inquest). So you have establish that evidence submitted to the inquest (and there is an awful lot of it) is worth adding to the article before the inquest has weighed the evidence and come to a conclusion and so there are no secondary sources to draw on for context. If you can do that, you need to establish why this particular submission (from December, last year, so not "the latest information" not that that's especially relevant anyway) and not all the others which comes back to the WP:WEIGHT issue raised in the first reply, above. I doubt you can do that without straying into original research because all we have here is a single accusation, nothing else. If it is incorporated into the coroner's report or there's a subsequent news story that develops from the accusation (which there won't be before the inquest is over) then it may well merit inclusion, but as things stand it does not. Lastly, in terms of your own editing and trying to adhere to WP:NPOV you may find it useful to take a step back and ask yourself why this particular part of an ongoing vast inquiry strikes you as so important. That's just a suggestion, and you don't need to reply here, but I think we all find it useful to consider our biases once in a while. (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, to quote from the Guardian article you linked to:
Groome said he subsequently heard of the meeting between senior officers, said to have included Duckenfield, superintendents Roger Greenwood and Bernard Murray, Inspector Steven Sewell and Chief inspector David Beal.
“Being unable to prove it, I believe that most of them were masons,” he said.
The coroner, Lord Justice Goldring, sent out the jury of seven women and four men to allow legal discussions after Groome gave his evidence about the freemasons’ meeting. At the end of the day, the coroner referred the jury to “evidence of a meeting said by Mr Groome, on the basis of rumour, to have taken place on the morning of April 16”.
Goldring told them: “I should say this quite clearly to you: we have no other evidence than this rumour, said to emanate from the [South Yorkshire police] area office. It amounts to no more than what the witness described as ‘scuttlebutt’.’”
I think that pretty definitively closes the matter. (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Inquest is mentioned 24 times in the article, why do you think it's once? Popish Plot (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the word "inquest", I was talking about the new inquest, currently ongoing, which was announced in December 2012 and began taking evidence at the end of March 2014 (to get an idea of the sheer number of testimonies given at the hearings so far see here). The new inquest has one sentence about it, at the end of the lead, which I've already quoted. All other mentions of inquest refer to the original inquest in 1989 which returned a verdict of accidental death and was overturned in 2012, leading to the new inquest.
I haven't checked your count (as counting words doesn't prove anything at all), but it occurs to me that since you apparently know very little about Hillsborough you may also be getting confused about the differences between an inquest and an inquiry. With Hillsborough, there have been two government inquiries: one that lead to the Taylor Report; and the inquiry by the Hillsborough Independent Panel. Neither of them was a full Public Inquiry. Once the new inquest has concluded, further investigations may take place, which could include criminal prosecutions, referrals to the IPCC or even a public inquiry. The inquest is just a first step in some cases (for example, a verdict of unlawful killing would still require a criminal prosecution to find those responsible).
Regardless of all that, the word count of "inquest" makes no difference to the unsuitability of this accusation for inclusion: whatever you say, it's hearsay, pure and simple. (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source saying it's hearsay? I think the one valid reason for not including this would be that Wikipedia is not a newspaper but this old news now from December 2014. We wouldn't include this info from yesterday:" but eventually we would. It refers to the inquest that was begun 2012. The last sentence of the lede here is currently: " On 19 December 2012, a new inquest was granted in the High Court." Perhaps the entire article should be edited to make the use of inquest and/or inquiry consistent? That's a separate issue. Popish Plot (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It is hearsay because Maxwell Groome was relying on things that he had heard. He could have been recycling gossip that he heard in the canteen. Groome offered no direct evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
IanMacM puts it well and it's a judgement we have to make as editors about the reliability of sources. Also the burden of proof is on you show that this information is from a reliable source and needs adding to the article, not the other way around. For what it's worth, though, the article quotes the Groome as saying he is unable to prove it and the coroner specifically instructed the jury that there is no evidence for the accusation and quotes Groome as saying it was scuttlebutt (a synonym for hearsay). Also bear in mind that exceptional claims require exceptional sources and in cases like this relying on a single primary source is unlikely to be reliable (and a report of an inquest proceeding with no commentary or analysis is undoubtedly a primary source). And let's be clear here: Groome is the source for this claim, not the media outlets reporting it - they make no claims about the accusation the merely report what was said. So we have a single source (Groome) with no reputation for accuracy reporting something which he admits is gossip. The only assessment of this is given by the coroner (whose profession is assessing evidence) who stresses to the jury that there is no evidence to support it. Plus there's the original issue of undue weight - why this and not any other evidence given to the inquest? I think it's worth you reading all the links (except for the joke ones) you have been given as I don't think you've grasped the principles of this beyond the most basic finding of a source. If you want some views from further afield it may be worth raising this as WP:RSN (make sure you detail the specifics).
For clarity: the new inquest didn't begin in 2012, it was announced then, when the verdict of the original inquest was quashed. It began in March 2014. All references to inquests and inquiries are consistent in the article and it doesn't need changing on that score. An inquest establishes the cause of death the context of the word "inquest" in the article shows where it referring to the original (1989) inquest or the new (2014) inquest. The inquiries had a wider remit and are referred to by name in the article. (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think guardian isn't a reliable source? And good point, a lot of other things should be in the article but this is one source I was looking into at the moment.
Currently here is the last sentence in the section : "On 12 July 2013 it was reported that the IPCC had found that in addition to the now 164 police statements known to have been altered, a further 55 police officers had changed their statements. Deborah Glass, deputy chair of the IPCC said, "We know the people who have contacted us are the tip of the iceberg." That was after the IPCC's Hillsborough Contact team had received 230 pieces of correspondence since October 2012. The IPCC also expected to launch a public appeal for more witnesses to come forward in the autumn of 2013. The IPCC investigation into how the West Midlands Police investigated South Yorkshire Police's conduct is also ongoing.[122]" This makes it seem like things are continuing, i.e. not all finished. Is there anything that can be added to the article about this since, or has there been no notable news? Or has there been notable news but it is very recent, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper so no need to add it now? How about the section ? Here it makes some quotes that you may say is hearsay, although that would matter in a court of law, if hearsay is notable enough and from a reliable source it should be in Wikipedia. This even mentions an unnamed civil cervant who edited this Wikipedia page. Is Groome, a cop involved in the case, not notable? How about David Conn then the guardian reporter who reported on this? He often reports on the Hillsborough disaster. Popish Plot (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep answering like you haven't even bothered to read peoples replies. Please read what has been said on this page carefully and try to understand it and also read all the links provided. The Guardian is not the source for this, Groome is, The Guardian is just reporting, pretty much verbatim, what was said at the inquest, they aren't making any claims about Freemasons being involved in a cover up. Groome is, by his own admission (and in the opinion of the coroner), not a reliable witness as all he is doing is repeating gossip. It is absolutely not suitable for an encyclopedia to use gossip as a source - how much clearer can that be? Seriously, no editor is going to want to include that here. And to repeat, if Wikipedia also has be to sure it isn't in contempt of court when writing about the inquest. If you're really sure this is suitable for an encyclopedia then I suggest you get a second opinion from WP:RSN but they're just going to agree that its not worth including. And my "good point" was not that the hundreds of pages of testimony to the inquest needs to be detailed in the article it was the exact opposite - the inquest isn't worth including until it reaches a verdict and we have secondary sources to draw on. That seems to be something that you don't understand a present: the difference between primary and secondary sources.
As the IPCC, they haven't reported yet (their page is here). So it would probably be best to leave that until they have reported as well, WP:DUST I think applies well here to all of this. Also the IPCC don't take evidence in public so we won't know a lot about their investigation until it is finished.
I'm concerned here that you're pushing a point of view that freemasonry helps to explain what happened (to quote "The article already says there were multiple failures and this helps explain why") and that simply isn't verifiable on the basis of a rumour, regardless of who reports on that rumour being given as evidence. You've been perfectly civil but please, take a step back, read the policies and don't be one of these people. I don't think they're anything more to be said about this, so that's it from me. (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Guardian is the source. that's how Wikipedia works. Do you think we should only have things from on here? Then I bet you'd say that is just a primary source lol. Also, rumors are ok as long as notable and have reliable source. Just check the entire section here called controversies. Please don't make any personal comments or assume bad faith. Popish Plot (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This here doesn't apply to Wikipedia.Popish Plot (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm done with this, as it stands this isn't being added to the article - and if you can't understand why not then never mind. If you're determined that it's important and needs adding then be WP:BOLD and add it - but it will be reverted (not by me, I'm leaving well alone) and WP:BRD will only establish a firm consensus against adding this to the article. However, going through the process may well help you understand why. And I'm sorry, but I've assumed good faith thus far and I can now only explain the arguments you've made are bad faith POV-pushing since everything in you most recent statement is either blatantly incorrect or a misrepresentation of my arguments to the extent that if you were trolling it'd have the same effect. That really is the last thing I'll say on this, do whatever you feel is necessary: edit the article; or ask at WP:RSN; or just leave things be. I'll let others take the process further. (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the last thing I want to is make you angry. I apologize. Please stay and help edit. I won't try to put anything in any wiki article that is controversial and doesn't have consensus. Popish Plot (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)