Talk:Heysel Stadium disaster/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Awfully biased

Seriously, this article needs a complete rewrite. It's one of the worst examples of bias I've encountered on Wikipedia, and I've read quite a few (thousand). Well, I guess sh** happens if you write an article based on English newspapers covering an indicent caused by English hooliganism. Interestingly, I've read both the German and French versions and they are mostly sober, NPOV, matter-of-fact accounts of the events of that day. This article should be rewritten using the facts from all four major contributions (English/German/French/Italian Wikipedia), but focusing on the NPOV style of the French and German documents. Alii or whatever your name is, you have failed utterly and completely. Sorry. -80.145.224.163 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked over the German and French articles. Neither gives a single source. Both are very brief accounts. I think it would be more useful if you would point out exactly what is wrong with this article rather than saying "all of it". Make a big bullet pointed list. Then at least, if the article is ever deemed to be in need of a large re-write, authors will know the sorts of things people take issue with. aLii 15:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Italian Eyes

I found the article well documented but absolutely partial and provocative.

The tone of the article does not absolutely match with the equivalent Wikipedia article in German and in French (I do not want to mention the Italian one).

Three things make the article unacceptable to my eyes:

Background: Liverpool vs. Rome

If it is a justification of the tragedy, it should be noticed that “violence can not be justified with previous violence”. If it is an explanation of the hooligans behavior it should be noticed than Roman fan are absolutely not connected with Juventus one. I think it is really dangerous this way of searching justification in previous episode and not miscible with the sense of sportsmanship.

Perhaps it should be rephrased, but I think mentioning the background of bad feeling is important, and infact makes Liverpool look worse, rather than better. aLii 09:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok I will be more clear.
I am on the opinion you mention the facts of Rome just to justify the terrible behaviour of the hooligans.
I find it awful and incorrect.
There was a previous match also for Liverpool-Rome, and then back and then back up to November 14th 1934 when in the "Higbury's Battle", the English team proteded by the referee, beaten the World Champion Italy team, istead of playing football.
So I think there are two possible solutions:
1) you mention all previous matches between Italian and English teams, or Italian and British team or Italian and North European teams
2) you cancel this infamous section
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
The problem I have with your objections is that a large percentage of English reports, mention the previous year's game. It was the previous final indeed, that involved Liverpool, hooliganism, and an Italian team. It seems relevent history to me. Obviously games from 1934 that involved neither Liverpool nor Juventus aren't relevent — I fail to see the comparison. aLii 12:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
All others pages in Wikipedia do not mention what happened in Rome so I suppose that the authors evaluate it as irrelevant. But the point is not this one, the point is: what do you want to say with that? If you want to say that what happened in Heysel was an answer to what happened in Rome, you should make an effort to understand the reasons of the Rome's facts and to search for background. So how it is written it seems to be a try to excuse the hooligans. And it is morally unacceptable.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
That pages in other Wikipedias are badly written and unreferenced is of little concern to me. We are talking about the English article. Perhaps this section should go, perhaps not. I would like to see a greater concensus than just you before it is removed. aLii 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you are not able to understand Italian, so I would kindly ask you to can cancel the first part of your comment or at list the words "badly written". Regarding the second one I have to admit you are right, let's wait someone else give his opinion.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
I understand enough to realise that there are no references. Also I can, and have in the past, run a translator over the article. It is full of statements like "In realtà il lancio di pietre non avvenne mai", which is completely unsubstantiated by references, and infact most good sources I've read disagree. Also "A questi tifosi si unirono anche tifosi del Chelsea, famosi per la loro violenza (si facevano chiamare "headhunters", "cacciatori di teste")" is complete rubbish. There were no Chelsea hooligans there. Some of the article is "ok", but in general it is poor. aLii 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said that you article is not referenced, what I said is that it is partial and provocative. If you were able to understand the Italian instead of using Babelfish, you would notice that the Italian article present the fact in a very neutral light and without any bias. This means "well written". The fact the article is shorter than your one does not mean it is poorer. Have you ever heard about Giuseppe Ungaretti?
Vincenzo Bevilavqua
Both articles are pretty neutrally written, however the Italian article contains various rumours and plain incorrect statements that are put forward as "the truth". Anyway this is a stupid arguement. We should argue about this article, not the Italian one. I don't know anything about Ungaretti. aLii 10:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Confrontations

The part of the chapter dedicated to the confrontations between Italian supporters and Belgian police is longer then those dedicated to the accidents who causes the death of 39 innocent people.

It is not mentioned the large majority of the people who died were not connected to any football fan organized group.

It is not mentioned that the habitude of the English hooligans of “taking a curve” was absolutely unknown in Italy, so that most of the people simply had no idea about what was going on.

The sentence “What then followed were two full hours of rioting at the Juventus end of the stadium” is in my opinion inappropriate. It is not mentioned that the people “rioting” probably lost relatives during the accidents and that no information service were available in the stadium.

The reason the sections are the length they are is because of the lack of references and sources. See Wikipedia:Citing Sources. If you have contradictory good sources, or even some extra information, please add it to the article, or list them here for me to add.
I've never heard of "taking a curve". I think I understand what you mean, but I don't see why it is relevent. Liverpool at the time were known as one of the few clubs without a big hooligan problem :-/
You are right, the expression is "Take an End", at least, according with the Italian version of the Wikipedia's article.
If you read the section of the Nick Hornby's book (I quote the Italian's name "Febbre a 90°", but I am sure you know what I mean) he said he was with an Italian class of the English Course and he was absolutely imbarassed because, if for other accidents he could ask himself "who are these guys", what happened in Heysel was excately what he experienced every week. And the problem was that Italians did not know. I can quote the whole text just in Italian because I have no English version of the book.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
I have not read the book, but I assume you mean Fever Pitch? Football hooliganism is the same problem the world over. I refuse to believe that Italian fans had never seen any hooliganism before this match. Perhaps it was "different", but then it is also "different" to what happened in English stadiums at the time. The Heysel disaster didn't happen every week in England. Infact similar circumstances never happened in England to my knowledge. aLii 12:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree, because it is exactely the opposite of what Hornby says. According with Hornby, "similar circurmastances" (like "take an end") was normal in England at that time and "Italian fans had never seen" these kind of behaviour before. I think you can mention this book, so that the reader of the article will have an other point of view, different from your one and enough documented.
Football hoolliganism is not the same all over the world. Only Liverpool's fans killed 39 people during a match and this is a fact.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
Which Hornby book are you talking about? Football hooligans in Italy have stabbed various English fans to death in the past few years. At Heysel a wall collapsing was what actually killed the 39, not being stabbed etc.. In that respect it was an accident. The Liverpool fans didn't actually intend to kill people, unless you have proof otherwise? aLii 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Since you give so much importance to source: the source you mention speaks about "three" people not "various", "stabbed" not "stabbed to death". Regarding the second sentence I am sure that you do not really mean what you wrote. In Italy, to cause the condition which determinates the death of a person is omicide. In England you have no written Constitution but I hope you have some similar law. The Liverpool holligans acted withou any respect for the human life, this is a crime and their behaviour does not deserve to be anyhow justified. If no people were charged of omicide, the obvious reason is that there are no evidence against a particular hoolligan, this does not mean that all are innocents, just the responsible were hidden in the crowd.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
I'll clear it up for you. "Murder" is killing someone with intent. "Manslaughter" is killing by negligence. aLii 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said "murder" and I find a pity that your vocabulary give so less importantance to the human life, but this is not the point we are discussing about. The point is how to describe in a objective manner what happened in the stadium ofter the hooligans attack. I would propose to substitute the paragraph: "What then followed were two full hours of rioting [...] duration of the game" with "The death of 39 innocents caused the reaction in the Juventus sector and some accidents occure between fans and police". This will make the lenght of the two sections proportionate to the severity of the facts and will give a more neautral description of the fact. All the details you mention are surely well documented, but unfortunately superfluous to describe the "Heysel's disaster" i.e. the omicide or manslaughter of 39 innocent people. You could mention the rederences to the reader who search for further detail, but in the main text sound just provocative.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
The Juventus fan with the gun is one of the most iconic images of the event, and detail of it should be kept. Your sentence cannot be used because it is obviously incorrect. They didn't know that 39 people had died. They knew a wall had fallen and many people were injured. I've just rearranged the current opening sentence to put "retaliation" at the start. I've also removed various bits of that section and rearranged it. It was badly written and repetitive anyway. The detail of the rioting is still there, but the section is only about half the size. What do you think? aLii 10:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to admid you are really doing efforts to improve your article and make it more neutral. I should also apologize for some word I used, that could sound impolite. The section you rephrased looks now more proportionate. I am not sure how does it sound the word "retaliation" in English. What in my optinion still sounds strange, is that you describe that situation like in that 2 hours just the Juventus supporters make disorders. Are you sure all the Liverpool's fan were sitting on their places?
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
"not connected to any football fan organized group" Organized group? Do you mean hooligan group? I hope not.
"probably lost relatives" — have you got any sources to back that up? Was it even known that there had been deaths at the other end of the stadium? The players said that they did not know.
It is easy to imagine that the people who died had relatives or close friends in the stadium. It is logic no need for source.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a place for imaginings. You do need a source, otherwise it is speculation or rumour. aLii 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No imagination here, but in your opinion, why that people were protesting?
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
Unless you can provide some evidence to back up your theory, we do not need to argue this particular point anymore. In my opinion why were Juventus fans rioting? I really do not know the circumstances, I was not there. My guess is that they were rioting in response to the Liverpool fans rioting at the other end. Two wrongs do not make a right though. aLii 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Finally you caught the point! It was a rensponse to an attack, so please describe this attack or the describtion of its reaction is senseless. A half true is a half lie.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
There were two hours of rioting at the Juventus end of the stadium, as captured on TV. Should Juventus fans's misconduct be wiped from history? aLii 09:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
No absolutely but the point is: Liverpool's fan killed 39 people, Juventus none. The lenght of the text should reflect this point.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
I do agree, but if there aren't any good sources to write 1000 words on how Liverpool fans charged through a wire fence, then we can't put 1000 words of detail in. By the same measure, the actions of Juventus fans should not be removed or minimised just because we can't find enough damning evidence against Liverpool fans. aLii 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Damning evidence? 39 bodies are not enough? I am on the opinion that the lenght of the two parts of the paragraph give the impression that the goal is to find an excuse or to minimize the behaviour of the hooligans. I think that the article should give an impartial view of the facts, and the attention dedicated to a detail should be proportioned to its importance. So if you can not find sources about the hooligans attack you should not write about the reaction. When people speak about the Heysel disaster do they refer to the omicide of 39 innocents or this supposed "riot"?
I think it is clear that you are using the excuse of the lack of sources to your unfair purpouses.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
What I mean is "what more can be said about the death of the 39?" How can more actually be written to balance the article differently? I would like there to be more detail, if it could be gathered. Try rewriting the section if you wish, but do not include allegations without a reasonable reference (i.e. a large news corporation, e.g. Reuters, BBC, CNN, etc.) aLii 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to rewrite any section because I am not able to write in correct English. My intention is just to express my opinion of what you write and to provide you with opinions and advices to improve your work.
Vincenzo Bevlacqua

Commemorations

I was in Turin and I met several English fan. All of them were convinced (as the writer of the article probably), that the excuses must be accepted.

I am of the opinion that those supporters have to accept the idea that Italian culture is different from the English one and even if all the sportsman do not want that events as the Heysel’s tragedy will happen again, some of them could have problem to shake a hand with a Liverpool fan. In particular if he drunk lot of beer and do not make any try to speak Italian.

I was also in the stadium. Prior of the match there were some little accident between police and Juventus fan, but no arrest or serious injury was reported. The atmosphere during the match was absolutely normal for a Champion’s League match in Turin. The description “ The second leg in Turin was played against a backdrop of crowd trouble as Juventus fans clashed with police, attacked Liverpool supporters and threw missiles” does not represent what actually happened.

We can discuss if a serious inquiry was needed or not, we can point out the lack of organization, the mistake in selling tickets but a critical description of the event can not miss to highlight this point: "Only the English fans were responsible. Of that there is no doubt." Vincenzo Bevilacqua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:22, 24 August 2006 (talk • contribs) 84.58.33.245

I wrote a lot of this article. I wasn't at Heysel, or a supporter of Liverpool at the time.
Reflect on this point, everyone who wrote on this page understood you are a Liverpool fan before you said that explicitely. It this enough to show that the article is bias?
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
Indeed I understand that I probably write with some amount of bias, but I also try not to include unsubstantiated allegations, which you seem to want to include. If you had looked at the top of this page I actually asked for help with this article a month ago, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Heysel Stadium disaster/archive1. No-one actually had anything constructive to say sadly. Overall I find your comments to be mostly emotional, and generally not very constructive. This should not be an article for saying "Liverpool fans are evil and intentionally murdered 39 Juventus fans in 1985", because that is patently not true. aLii 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Everyone is convinced that not all Liverpool's fans are evil. On the other hand it is clear that someone at Heysel stadium acted without giving any importance to the life of 39 innocent people. And that people had a red shirt. If you are speaking about Heysel stadium can not neglect this particular.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
Regarding the last Champions League meeting in Turin. The BBC Match Report states "The game was played to a backdrop of trouble as Juventus fans clashed with police, attacked Liverpool fans and threw missiles throughout the tie." I understand that this may be an everyday occurance in Italy, but in Britain this kind of behaviour is (rightly) reported. Thankfully since our involvement in some of the worst football tragedies in history the government and FA have cracked down on such behaviour, to the extent where if it happens it is newsworthy. It is shameful that Juventus fans continue to act in this manner after their experiences at Heysel.
What happened in Turin is far away from what happened at Heysel. You can not use in the same article, similar expression for the worse disaster of the Uefa history and for little accident. If you do not see the difference,I will explain with a number: 39 innocent death people.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
Do you think that mentioning the 2005 tie is correct? It's one sentence and seems relevent to an article about football hooliganism, Liverpool and Juventus. It shows to me that Juventus fans are still hurting from 1985, and seemingly still want revenge. I think it's 100% relevent. aLii 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course Juventus fans are still hurting, a child will never forgot the death of the father. Do they want revenge? I do not think so, no people died in Turin and this is a fact. I never said that I find incorrect to mention the 2005's tie, what I mean is that the words should be proportiate to the context. It is obvious that if we are describing a Champions League turn, in Turin happened "accidents", but if we are speaking about the omicide of 39 innocent, in Turin "everything went AMAZINGLY well" (quoted from this page). I find innapropriate to quote sentence pronounced in completely differents circumstances in the same article. Italian newspaper described the victory against Ukraine as a "massacre" and "massacre" is the word normally used to described what happened in Auschwitz, do you think that the events are compareble?
And then explain me the meaning of that pictures? How can you put that nice picture in an article speaking about the Heysel's disaster? It is clear you want to give an image of the Liverpool's hoolligans completely different from the one they showed in 1985. This is too easy, if we are speaking of the Second World War we use Hitler to describe Germany, if we are speaking about 2006 we use the images of the world Cup. Death images are never nice, but surely more appropriate in the article "Heysel's disaster".
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
At Heysel there was throwing and charging, and various hooliganism-related non-accidents. The death of 39 however was not intended, and so, yes it was an accident. The throwing and fighting in Turin in 2005 were also hooliganism-related non-accidents. It just so happens that the two sets of fans were not in a decaying football stadium at the time, and so thankfully no-one died. aLii 19:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you really think that the difference between what happened at Delle Alpi stadium and Heysel stadium, were just the condition of the structure?
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
No, I don't. I was pointing out the similarities, and also the unfortunate nature of the Heysel disaster. aLii 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that a more neutral describtion of the facts is the following one: "During 20 years no attempt of the Liverpool fan to pinpoint the responsibles of the Heysel's fact or at least to refund the victime of the disaster is reported, but suddenly before the first leg of the 2005 Champions League quarter final, at Anfield Liverpool fans held up placards to form a banner saying "amicizia". Italian supporters present to the stadium considered it just as an exhibition in front of the European TV cameras and decided to defend the honour of the victimes turning civilly their back. 15 days later the second leg in Turin was anticipated by war proclam in Juventus internet fanzine and peace appeaels from Juventus players and manager. Little groups of Juventus supporters try to get in touch with Liverpool fans but were stopped by the huge service order of the italian polices. Little accidents were reported with the throw of stones from one side and tear gasses bomb from the other, but considering the worries people had before the games, everything went amazingly well"
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
If one is to say that, then one should also say that "No commemoration was laid at Heysel until the 20th anniversary, and Juventus have still not made a formal commemoration." We can't only tell one side of the story, it's totally against Wikipedia guidelines, and is misleading. Yes Liverpool has generally tried to forget about the Heysel disaster, but then so has Heysel itself, and even the Juventus football club. Otello Lorentini is the only person who seems to be standing up for more recognition for Heysel. Perhaps a paragraph about him and the Association of families of Heysel victims could be added? I would like the section to be more about what commemorations there have been, than what hasn't happened. Late is better than never in my eyes. aLii 10:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Lorentini you are right, an article about him and his fondation would be appropriate. About the facts in Anfield and Delle Alpi, I think that you article should be rephrased because represent just a part of the truth. You should explain why the Italians turn their back and not just extrapolate that fact from the context to condamn it. This can give you a first step http://juvenews.tifonet.it/vis.php?idnotizia=90, this is more explicite http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/viewmessaggi.aspx?f=7543&idd=7414. This article from the most important italian newspaper was written before the second leg in Turin, describes the atmospheara of the days before the matches: http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Squadra/Juventus/primipiani/2005/04/07problemaultras.shtml. April 5, 2005 "Liverpool Echo" title "We're Sorry" and they day after it accepts the Italians behaviour. " The editorial, headlined 'We're sorry', apologised without restraint " 'No ifs, no buts, no excuses' " and came from a newspaper that has maintained its reputation as a keen gauge of opinion in the city it serves. The Gazzetta's veteran London correspondent, Giancarlo Gallavotti, who was at the Heysel match 20 years ago, wrote 'The Liverpool Echo's front page should be the last page on Heysel', so complete was the apology". I think you could use these words to close your article. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050407/ai_n13564551.
P.S. By the way this article http://juvenews.tifonet.it/vis.php?idnotizia=87 mentions that at Anfield Road there is a momument to commemorate the people died in Sheffield but not the people died in Brussels, can you confirm that?
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
"Only the English fans were responsible. Of that there is no doubt." is in the article. I put it there myself. However that is the opinion of one official, who, it must be assumed, did not want to see an official inquiry. That being said, the direct cause of the disaster was Liverpool supporters, and I think it is made quite clear in the article.aLii 09:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely do no agree on that. I already quoted Nick Hornby, but I mean everyone who sees this scene: http://www.youtube.com/v/uQbW5ww1mCo Point 0:38. understand that, the people who died were innocents running out from the criminal Liverpool's fan.
On that there is no discussion.
So please modify the first sentece of your article, as following: "The Heysel Stadium disaster was an accident that occurred due to Liverpool's hooligans"
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
I feel that the current opening sentence ("The Heysel Stadium disaster was an accident that occurred due to football hooliganism") to be better English, and more neutral. I understand why you feel it should be changed. The second paragraph does fully detail the cause of the accident and lays blame on Liverpool fans. Since your comments I did actually alter the second paragraph to make it look worse for Liverpool fans. aLii 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, I am Italian, so I will not discuss about the English form. The second paragraph is now better, but you still forgot to point out the intentionality of the "accidents".
Trying to protect criminals is not neutral.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
There was no intention to kill people as far as I'm concerned. You realise that no-one was ever even investigated for murder? That is your personal view, not anything to do with fact. aLii 19:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There was intention to create disorder, to create that conditions that cause the death of 39 innocents. This is crime. As I already written, the fact that none was charged does not proof that none deserved to be charged.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
The fact that fans weren't investigated, if true, doesn't prove there was no murder you know. It depends on the evidence of the circumstances. If that can be provided, and I've read reports, witnesses that the fans were stabbed by knives/bottles while on the ground getting killed. Whether these are reliable per WP:RS and the extent of this evidence is open to research which should be made and I don't have enough knowledge of this at the moment. But it might very well have to do with fact, and not WP:POV. Amoruso 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Have either of you actually read this article? I'll quote the relevent paragraph here to help you spot it:
"There were 27 arrests on suspicion of manslaughter – the only extraditable offence applicable to events at Heysel. Approximately 60 per cent were from Liverpool and the remainder from places that ranged from Aberdeen to Ipswich. Some of these people had previous convictions for football related violence. In 1989, after a 5-month trial in Belgium, fourteen Liverpool fans were given 3-year sentences for involuntary manslaughter.[1] Half the terms were suspended[2] and none served their sentences."
Fans were investigated, charged and convicted for manslaughter offences (Note: not murder). The British government wanted people to be punished and studied the footage to find 27 people. However the Belgians apparently didn't want them in their prisons. aLii 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually here's an article that indicates that at least one person did serve some time [1]. Interesting. aLii 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The name of the "red animal" is Terry Wilson http://juvenews.tifonet.it/vis.php?idnotizia=90 he served 9 mounths. Reflect about this numbers 39 death, 9 mounths. It would be ridicolous if we were not speaking about omicide (or how you want to describe the death of someome as direct consequence of the lack of civilization by someonelse). I think it is correct to affirm that none was never punished for what happened at the Haysel.
Vincenzo Bevilacqua
I totally agree. The article also neglects to mention that Liverpool fans kept stabbing juventus supporters after the wall fell down. The article is biased and it wants people to think that it's all neutral, this is a trend ever since then. Amoruso 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a single good reference for that? Please read WP:CITE, to understand the problems with writing this article from internet sources. Also worth reading are WP:POV and WP:NPOV. I have gone out of my way to ask around Wikipedia for help with this article, but none has been forthcoming. If you want to help make this a better article I'll be more than happy.
By all means remove anything that is biased toward Liverpool, or add in a counter-point. If you think a certain point needs a reference add {{Fact}} (I notice you actually did twice). The article should not be rewritten to be biased in a different way though — lets be clear about that. Bias should be removed where found, not changed. Cheers, aLii 09:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I'm sure your writing was in good faith. Amoruso 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my opinion, as I've made some edits to this article. I agree that the article should focus on the disaster itself, ie the events leading up to the deaths of the Juventus fans - the ticketing arrangements, the behaviour of Liverpool fans (which was the direct cause of the disaster), inadequate policing, and a dilapidated stadium - and also the aftermath and consequences of it. I think the events in Rome the previous year should be mentioned too, as some Liverpool players have stated that that was a possible motivation for Liverpool supporters to cause trouble at the stadium. However, I've never read or heard anything that said that those Liverpool fans who caused the crush did it deliberately and set out to kill people. Yes, they obviously wanted to attack and hurt Juventus fans, no question, but not kill anybody (although in "the heat of battle", who knows).--MackORell 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Article bias?

I don't know what form the article was in at that point and while I think most of the article seems OK. The first sentence doesn't seem to be really NPOV; it does not indicate any kind of blame at all towards the fans but makes it seem as if it was purely the fault of poor construction. I am not educated enough about the event to comment on the rest of the article, although some of the criticism against officials for not investigating further does come off protective of the Liverpool fans. aLii, you seem to be cleaning up and editing this article, perhaps you could try to make those sections more neutral? Crito2161 00:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the first sentence, but not any of the rest. I wrote the article from press reports (and small bit of the existing article) because I thought that it needed to be done. I have no first hand experience and I did not see the television broadcast. As I'm English and don't speak Italian the only press reports available to me were from the English POV and so there probably is some inherent bias. If you have any information, or want to do some Italian research that'd be great. Otherwise if you want to point me to any specific areas of concern I can endeavour to make them more neutral. Cheers, aLii 10:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As a "neutral" observer, I see a serious bias in the tone of this article. If I had to write a one sentence resume of this article it would read: 39 people died in Heysel, most of them Italians, but they had it coming and the whole world unjustly blamed Liverpool fans for it. Now, I am sure that this is not the intention of the writer, but this is what the tone of the article suggests. I fully recognize the importance of not falling into the everything either black or white trap, but the author makes too much effort to lay blame on part of the Italian fans while minimising British hooligans involvement. As it is, I feel this is a POV article and not up to encyclopaedic standards. I believe the material itself to be of good value, but it should be presented with a less "blame the victims" tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.41.213 (talk • contribs) 18:43 17 July 2006

Critisism, critisism, critisism, but nothing constructive. You know if people are going to go to the trouble of leaving a comment here, that probably only I'm going to read, you're going to have to say something constructive to get me to edit the article. Some points:
  1. The fact that there was a history of bad blood between Italian and Liverpool supporters is relevant in my eyes.
  2. The fact that there was never any kind of official enquiry is certainly odd and worth noting.
  3. Find me some good sources that say one way or the other whom is to blame and I shall include it.
  4. Find some good sources and edit the article yourself if you feel so strongly.
aLii 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Raining Missiles - read some articles

Read Alan Hansen's account in the BBC Sport page (05th April) on his experience at Heysel. There's one source, for you. Personally , I remember seeing News footage of the event (BBC and ITV) - and there was a lot. Juve fan's were throwing bits of cement, and fireworks - yes I know it happens alot in Italian (can I say Italian?) football, but following a few days after the Bradford fire disaster.....a bit provocative. The Liverpool fans rushed the Juventus fans, yes there is no excuse for this behaviour- However -remember this is the '80's and rushing the opposition supporters was a common , and amazingly at the time regarded as a fairly harmless, practice. (Read Nick Hornby - Fever Pitch, and the other dozens of lesser books on Engish Football in this period). The events were horrible, no one was ever really punished - but following years of English Clubs doing this kind of thing,all over Europe, this was the final and most tragic straw. Before this, Liverpool fans were not known as hooligans quite the opposite; but that was by the standards of the day. No excuses should be made ; but at least a balanced view from recorded archives to understand why something happened. We should also not forget the legislation brought into the game following this, especially around barriers - created many of the problems which made Hillsborough such a tragedy.(Taylor Report).

I clearly remember watching BBC Breakfast Time the morning before the match where they were discussing the game. Frank Bough was talking to co-presenter Debbie Greenwood (a Liverpudlian) and I remember him saying something like "There will be no no trouble, because there are no Hooligans among the Liverpool supporters", and Debbie Greenwood nodding away. Liverpool fans were definitely not known as trouble makers before that match. Jooler 18:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 Champions League tie

I think the bit about the 2005 CL tie between the clubs could use some rewriting. If I didn't know better I'd get the impression that there were a lot more trouble than there actually was. At Anfield in Liverpool, all that happened was that some of the Juve fans turned their backs to the apologies to show they weren't quite ready to forgive yet. There were no physical confrontations between fans there at all. In Turin there were some minor confrontations between fans and Juve ultras quarreled with the police outside the stadium and yes, there were a few seats and bottles and things thrown inside the stadium but there were hardly more problems than what's par for the course in a game in Italy these days. Considering the worries people had before the games, everything went AMAZINGLY well.

I think problems due to the Juventus supporters during the tie in Italy should be noted as this is an article about hooliganism. I don't think that saying "well it's always that bad in Italy" excuses them at all - that is how the disaster happened in the first place! aLii 12:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

I removed the first section which copied the h2g2 article pretty much word for word. [2] Stu ’Bout ye! 14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment H2g2 is a peer review site written by the public, like wikipedia, so you cant really copyvio it can you? Philc TECI 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
another comment, the whole article is a copyvio of the h2g2 article [3] --Philc TECI 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
sorry, no its not just the background paragraph Philc TECI 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Which events in Rome?

This article currently has the sentence:

After the events in Rome, club rivalries had been put aside: Juventus were to catch the full fury of the English hooligan elite.

These "events in Rome" are not referred to earlier in the article. It would be helpful if either (a) they were previously mentioned or (b) a hyperlink is added to "events in Rome" to refer to an alternate wikpedia article about these events.

There was a documentary on the BBC called "Reds in Europe" I think. In it, Phil Thompson and some supporters at the final in Rome in 1984 described how Liverpool fans were attacked when they were leaving the stadium. I don't know any more than that really. I'll have a look for any further info I can find. --MackORell 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised there's no mention of those events in detail to be honest. It's the reason various English FC firms turned up. Basically LFC scarfies were set upon in Rome, none of the English firms liked it and arranged to go to Heysel together to claim revenge. There's a mention of it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A713909 and also at http://family.maltanet.net/hawk/html/Heysel.htmlPhilipPage 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this page with Kenny Dalglish's opinion on what happened at Heysel - http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/history/dalglish-heysel.shtm He mentions the trouble in Rome. If you look at footage of Heysel, before the trouble started, you can see people on the Liverpool side of the fence standing "facing off" towards the Juve side (although there were a fair few Liverpool supporters in the "neutral section" too). There's a guy actually waving a Union Jack at them.--MackORell 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The events in Rome were in this article but someone, after others said this article was biased towards Liverpool, took it out and replaced it with that one sentence. But to understand it, the background section needs to be there, not alluded to. So I put back the original Background section.

Note: This discussion is now obsolete. aLii 12:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Other fans

Are you going to cite any sources for the Millwall and other fans being there? Strikes me as bullshit to make Liverpool fans seem less responsible by dilution. Not that I'd be surprised from a scouse apologist Pear 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There's some articles that mention other clubs' fans being there and intent on causing trouble. But it was only Liverpool fans who were charged for it, so any other "firms" who were there obviously didn't cause enough trouble to warrant being arrested. It sounds very dubious.

When was the stadium built?

The article cites the stadium as having been built in 'the twenties' and in '1930'. Can someone who knows correct whichever of these is wrong?

A. Consensus elsewhere on the web seems to suggest 1930 - some sites say 1920s but these are very much in the minority. On that basis I changed "in the 1920s" to "1930". 147.188.192.41 13:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Book

This article looks like its been written as novel, It has so many requirements of citation and unverified statements and POV, that it looks to me like a tear down and start again job. Philc TECI 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try and find sources for the article, but I agree that probably half of it will eventually have to be removed. The sources I have been finding are generally eyewitness reports from Liverpool fans and hearsay from Liverpool players, which is hardly NPoV. A few that seem uncontroversial I'm putting in though or we'd end up with no article! aLii 01:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

List of the victims

Before putting it into the article I thought that perhaps we should talk about it. I personally think that it should be included as a mark of respect, and it is informative after all. The list is:

Rocco Acerra; Bruno Balli; Alfons Bos; Giancarlo Bruschera; Andrea Casula; Giovanni Casula; Nino Cerrullo; Willy Chielens; Giuseppina Conto; Dirk Daenicky; Dionisio Fabbro; Jaques Francois; Eugenio Gagliano; Francesco Galli; Giancarlo Gonnelli; Alberto Guarini; Giavacchino Landinni; Roberto Lorenzini; Barbara Lusci; Franco Martelli; Loris Massore; Gianni Mastroiaca; Sergio Bastino Mazzino; Luciano Rocco Papaluca; Benito Pistolato; Patrick Radcliffe; Demenico Ragazzi; Antonio Ragnanese; Claude Robert; Mario Ronchi; Domencio Russo; Tarcisio Salvi; Gianfranco Sarto; Mario Spanu; Amedeo Giuseppe Spolaore; Tarcisio Venturin; Jean Michel Walla; Claudio Zavaroni. 8+8+7+7+7+1 = 38.

I got the list from football365.com - it is not mentioned in most news articles. aLii 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also where did "32 Italians, 4 Belgians, two Frenchmen and an Irishman" come from? I've found two sources that state it was 38 Italians and 1 Belgian. Admittedly Patrick Radcliffe sounds Irish, and a good few sound more Belgian than Italian to me, but we should strive to get this stuff correct, or at least not wrong. "39 dead, mostly Italian" is what I decided upon for the abstract. aLii 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The London Juventus supporters club website also lists the victims [4]. The BBC website mentions Italian and Belgian victims, no French or Irish [5], and I have found other sources that state 38 Italians and 1 Belgian. k m s 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's their list:

Rocco Acerra (29) Bruno Balli (50) Alfons Bos Giancarlo Bruschera (21) Andrea Casula (11) Giovanni Casula (44) Nino Cerrullo (24) Willy Chielens Giuseppina Conto (17) Dirk Daenicky Dionisio Fabbro (51) Jaques Francois Eugenio Gagliano (35) Francesco Galli (25) Giancarlo Gonnelli (20) Alberto Guarini (21) Giavacchino Landinni (50) Roberto Lorenzini (31) Barbara in Margiotta Lusci (58) Franco Martelli (46) Loris Massore (28) Gianni Mastroiaca (20) Sergio Bastino Mazzino (38) Luciano Rocco Papaluca (38) Bento Pistalato (50) Patrick Radcliffe Domenico Ragazzi (44) Antonio Ragnanese (29) Claude Robert Mario Ronchi (43) Domencio Russo (28) Tarcisio Salvi (49) Gianfranco Sarto (47) Mario Spanu (41) Amedeo Giuseppe Spolaore (55) Tarcisio Venturin (23) Jean Michel Walla Claudio Zavaroni (28). 6+4+6+5+5+5 = 31. Many names are strung together? Source: Guerin Sportivo No. 23, 5-11 June 1985

I think I actually trust the f365 list more, but as far as my counting goes even it is missing one name.
The Italian wikipedia page has:
  • Rocco Acerra (29)
  • Bruno Balli (50)
  • Alfons Bos
  • Giancarlo Bruschera (21)
  • Andrea Casula (11)
  • Giovanni Casula (44)
  • Nino Cerrullo (24)
  • Willy Chielens
  • Giuseppina Conti (17)
  • Dirk Daenecky
  • Dionisio Fabbro (51)
  • Jaques François
  • Eugenio Gagliano (35)
  • Francesco Galli (25)
  • Giancarlo Gonnelli (20)
  • Alberto Guarini (21)
  • Giovacchino Landini (50)
  • Roberto Lorentini (31)
  • Barbara Lusci (58)
  • Franco Martelli (46)
  
  • Loris Messore (28)
  • Gianni Mastrolaco (20)
  • Sergio Bastino Mazzino (38)
  • Luciano Rocco Papaluca (38)
  • Luigi Pidone (31)
  • Bento Pistolato (50)
  • Patrick Radcliffe
  • Domenico Ragazzi (44)
  • Antonio Ragnanese (29)
  • Claude Robert
  • Mario Ronchi (43)
  • Domenico Russo (28)
  • Tarcisio Salvi (49)
  • Gianfranco Sarto (47)
  • Amedeo Giuseppe Spalaore (55)
  • Mario Spanu (41)
  • Tarcisio Venturin (23)
  • Jean Michel Walla
  • Claudio Zavaroni (28)
It also concurs with the 32 Italians, 4 Belgians, two Frenchmen and an Irishman part.aLii 10:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To do

Here's a timeline of the aftermath for someone to use, i'm going to bed... http://football.guardian.co.uk/championsleague200405/story/0,15008,1450635,00.html aLii 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

References

Some citations are needed to support what is being talked about the situation inside the stadium.

smr 10:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)smrgeog

No, that section just needs completely rewriting! As of yet I can't be bothered to do the necessary research - perhaps you will? aLii 15:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)