Talk:Hillsborough Disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
The article on Hillsborough Disaster is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the England task force. |
 |
This article is supported by the Liverpool task force. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 To-do list for Hillsborough Disaster: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
Archive 1: start - 17 January 2007
Contents |
[edit] Greenslade references (11 and 12)
How does an article talking about Sun price cuts in 2006 which tangentially mentions Hillsborough demonstrate any of the things that it's supposed to in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.190.39 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a pretty good article, although IMHO it could use a longer lead; also, I think it should say something about how this incident compares to other sports disasters. --ChaChaFut 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how the "all stadiums were converted to all-seater following the disaster" managed to remain in this article. It was clearly written by someone who does not follow football. Nicander 10:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] interesting
this site is the most interesting 1 out of them all what did the forest fans do did they try and help.connor age 11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.110.20 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
This is a VERY biased article. You can't believe everything you read.
Very astute observation, and more peritinent to the Sun, rather than Wikipedia or the Taylor Report. Lion King 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
VERY good point. The article seems to outright dismiss that Pool fans did rob the dead and urinate of help, seeing the disgusting events first hand I can tell you the Sun got things spot on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.53.12 (talk • contribs)
What a liar, and a total scumbag you are. No police or other emergency services workers ever came forward to say they had been attacked or abused. No families of the victims ever reported missing valuables. Even a police investigation following the disaster found no evidence for fans mugging the dead. No one ever came forward to say they witnessed urination on, or abuse of the dead. Provide evidence of your allegations (other that the lie that you where there), or shut up. 86.138.54.55 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it wasn't there, it's a troll - don't feed it :) Lion King 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
The whole article comes across as biased. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but it gives the impression that the Liverpool fans were blameless. A link to the Heysel disaster might also be appropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.30.108 (talk • contribs)
- It gives the impression that the Liverpool fans were blameless, because the Liverpool fans Were Blameless. To suggest otherwise, is preposterous. And why would a link to Heysel be appropriate? I think I know where your'e going with this, so let me give you some advice - don't even think about it, OK? Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't preposterous, an encyclopedic entry should have all the info on various factors that contributed, even if they are only rumours (as long as there are cites and are marked as such). For instance people entering the ground without tickets was a factor (just google hillsborough "without tickets" for any number of cites) and although never officially substantiated there was a a suspician that intoxication was a factor. The fact you "think you know where he's going with this" is enough to confirm that these rumours and allegations are widespread. Also, your wording of that last sentence comes off as somewhat threatening, do not use language that may inflame an argument please. Abigsmurf 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't warn me, do I make myself clear? ABIGFIREMAN
-
- Way to miss my point about using threatening language on what should be an academic resource! Abigsmurf 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Seems like Abigsmurf has problems with points of view. He has been warned about it on his own page. egde 14:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- and judging by your talk page you seem to be friends with [[User:Vera, Chuck & Dave|User:Vera, Chuck & Dave]. Again this talk page is about discussing how to make this article better and presenting all sides of the story is the best way to do that. For a Liverpool fan to threaten people wanting to post information regarding facts that are uncomfortable for him and then get a friend to back him up is not in the best interests of readers wanting an accurate resource. Abigsmurf 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well how about me then? I'm not "friends" with either of these users. Firstly, I would say that the comment: "Don't warn me do I make myself clear"? seems to be a very firm request, not a threat and under the circumstances a justifiable one. Secondly, you need to read the Taylor Report. Thirdly, before wanting to add any "suspicions of intoxicatation" and "ticketless fans entering the ground" next time you "Google" - look at where this so called inorfmation is coming from and see if it meets WP:Reliable Sources. Lastly, there was only one body responsible for the Hillsborough disaster and that was THE POLICE, who lied, commited perjury, destroyed and withheld evidence, and fed lies to the gutter press who were only too pleased to spew them out. Lion King 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Verifiability may also help Lion King
-
-
-
-
- I think this article is now as close to a NPOV as it's going to be possible to get. There are too many editors here with an emotional investment against any accusations regarding the Liverpool fans for a fully NPOV to be practical. At least the accusations are mentioned - that seems sufficient. Trewornan 17:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] The truth
I checked the "Hillsborough without tickets" sites, and they were mostly about Athens, and not Hillsborough. I will put the following quote here and a web page reference, which deals with the Hillsborough match:
"To-camera, Trevor reports an ambulanceman's recollection that preventable deaths were caused by lack of medical equipment and the failure to let ambulances onto the pitch. There follows a police cover-up. Traumatised officers are warned to not put anything in their notebooks, and although some officers ignore this, one later changes his statement during a court case after a call from a pathologist involved in the case.
Relatives who have just identified bodies are asked [by the police] whether their loved ones had been drinking or had arrived without tickets. This becomes the constantly repeated defence by police, despite being dismissed by the official Taylor inquiry, which squarely blames police failure. As The Sun newspaper prints lies - which are seen to come from senior police briefings - about Liverpool fans stealing from and urinating on the dead the relatives are faced with not only burying their loved ones but also having to defend their reputations.
The families try legal action to make South Yorkshire police accountable for their negligence, but are disappointed because of legal points, such as the dismissal of deaths after 3.15pm after the disputed evidence of a pathologist, the absence of police video evidence, and the swaying of juries by repeated allegations about the dead." Hillsborough (1996)
This is the truth. I rest my case. egde 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cites
There are hardly any cites in this entire page. Please put references in. And to say Liverpool fans were entirely blameless is one of the most blinkered things I have ever heard. 62.25.109.195 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- ALOL! I've seen it all now! An "editor" who has been repeatedly warned and blocked for vandalism, requesting references! Take your time and read the article, read the Taylor Report and you will discover that the Liverpool fans were completely exonerated - the only people who want to perpetuate this nonsense is the gutter scum press and it's faithful "readership" made up of Tit loving Mummy's boys with learing difficulties. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DVD?
"Following The Sun's report, the newspaper was boycotted by most newsagents in Liverpool, with many refusing to stock the tabloid and large numbers of readers cancelling orders and refusing to buy from shops which did stock the newspaper. The Hillsborough Justice Campaign also organised a national boycott which was less successful, but certainly hit the paper's sales as refected by a constant drop in price and free soft porn DVD offers.[6]"
erm, they wouldn't have had DVDs back then. Either this is a mistake for VHS or the writer is trying to imply that the Sun is STILL suffering the effects of that campaign and that is why they produce such DVD offers which would be hard to believe given that the sun is the UK's most popular national newspaper
erm, yes they are still suffering the effects [1] and the reference to DVD's reflects the present day format, of course there weren't DVD's in '89, it was Free "Magazines, followed by video and anything else that would retain the images of Soft porn. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit war about Man Utd/Sunderland game
There currently appears to an edit war going on concerning a minute's silence. Of course, this should be cited, but I guess it doesn't violate WP:BLP. On the other hand, in the overall scheme of things, is it notable enough for inclusion? It would be good if the two editors involved could discuss the issue here, as 3RR is about to be breached. The JPStalk to me 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not discussing anything with anyone that refers to my edits as vandalism, I've only ever requested that the user in question be civil and allow time for a source to be provided - is that really to much to ask for? Thanks, Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that there was a WP:AGF problem in some of the edit summaries. Still, WP:TEA. It's not harmful enough to warrant an immediate removal (tho' if I were a Man Utd fan I may feel differently: normally I'm up for anti Man-U bias, but I've got my admin hat on atm.). The JPStalk to me 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New grounds?
It says on the article that in conjunction with the Taylor Report that the last 'new ground' built with standing was Chester City, this isn't true as in recent years Burton Albion, Dartford FC & Northwich Victoria have all built new grounds with standing.
It should be amended to be more specific or removed altogether I think. Alix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dozzer cufc (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 December 2007
