This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Merseyside B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Football: England / Liverpool / Sheffield Wednesday B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Liverpool task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Sheffield Wednesday task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sheffield B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yorkshire B‑class Low‑importance Hillsborough disaster is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course it wasn't there, it's a troll - don't feed it :) Lion King 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because no police publicly backed up The Sun's story doesn't mean it wasn't true. They would have been afraid of violence from the public if they said anything. (Huey45 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

So if a newspaper reported that a shop was robbed, but the shopkeeper says he wasn't robbed, and the seven people in his shop at the time also say no robbery took place this means the newspaper story is still true? NO ONE from the police, or the thousands of other people at the game ever reported anything like the sun said happen. Are you some kind of moron or what? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.136.249 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is terribly biased so as to completely absolve the moronic soccer hooligans who are obviously at fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another clueless yank giving their unwanted opinion on a subject that they clearly know nothing about. Read the evidence, the fans were NOT to blame 78.148.138.232 (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps I've just read the article as it stands; I might be accused of several biases - I don't like football, I am a police officer, and am an ex-Sheffield man. I'm also pretty scathing about blame culture, and groups who seek 'justice' when official reports don't favour their own points of view, and who seek to scapegoat both individuals and institutions for complex disasters. However as far as NPOV goes - I think this article has it about right actually which I found both refreshing and surprising. I wish some of the talk contributors could rise to the same standard though. I would think that the next update would be when (or if?) all the classified documents relating to the disaster are released, and whether that increases our understanding of what happened. Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What I feel everyone has missed is that the fans that died were most likely at the front of the enclosure - having got there early and in good time. The difficulty with any suggestion that the fans played some part in the disaster is difficult for many to stomach simply becuase the fans that died were wholly innocent in this. It is also a problem that due to the tribal nature of football this is also seen as an attach on Liverpool fans. My own personal experience from those times is that football fans in large crowds could behave in a manner that put others at risk - I recall leaving a game and a number of fans behind me linking arms and surging forward delibaretely creating some form of crowd surge. In my view crowd behaviour (often affected by alcohol) will have been a factor in this disaster. THIS HOWEVER WAS NOT A LIVERPOOL ISSUE it was a football issue. Hillsborough could probably occurred to any other of the big clubs and a natural desire to avoid any criticism that could be seen as criticism of the dead should not prevent a proper analysis. It is not relevant whether the fans that died had tickets or not or were or were not drunk. The relevant question is whether those arriving close to kick off were drunk or had tickets or behaved appropriately. In considering the police's actions we need to consider whether this was (a) mistake - just poor decisions in possibly a difficult situation created by the late arrival of fans, (b) reckless or malicious - and in these latter to circumstances should we not also examine the behaviour of fans towards police over the years which may have created the atmosphere in which such view could flourish - whether or not such an atmosphere is acceptable 86.136.141.204 (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why oh why does some scumbag keep changing the cause to human stampede when it wasnt, it was fault of the poor policing and a old inadequate ground, also the FA and Sheff Wed are at fault. and why as the ability to edit been removed, no doubt down a manc scumbag, please get it changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.14.66 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 JPS^{talk to me} 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 JPS^{talk to me} 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WOOT Go Dartford! Lol.

Anyway, I believe the Taylor's report was mainly on all-seater stadiums? Conay (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the lead section reads, "...resulted in the conversion of many football stadiums in the United Kingdom to all-seater". The term 'all-seater' is not familiar to me as an American, non-football fan. I think the lead section needs to be comprensible to someone new to the topic, like me. Can you find some way to clarify the meaning of this term? ike9898 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "All-seater" means that all customers have a seat to sit on and none need to stand. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please check the wording of the dedication on the Pogues album? As it was released in 1989, the number of people who lost their lives couldn't have been higher than 95. Dupont Circle (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section appears to have been chopped and changed making some parts make little sense, the protest in January 2007 was related to McKensie repudiating his apology and reiterating that the article was true but now this section isn't in chronological order the reasons for the protests aren't made clear.--Sully (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to the moving ceremony I noticed some of the victims' names are missing from this article, at the bottom of both columns, it would be good if anyone with the information could add them. Seadog365 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This story truely broke my heart! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.230.82 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as that petition is admirable, this is not the place for it, as it is unencyclopedic. Sorry. However, if it can re-added in a way that is acceptable for Wikipedia, it will be OK.Malpass93 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the following sentence:

"BBC Television's cameras were on the ground to record the match for their..."

If the correct usage is:

"BBC Television's cameras were at the ground to record the match for their..."

Should ground have an s added making the sentence:

BBC Television's cameras were at the grounds to record the match for their..."Coradon (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2009 (utc)

The photos on this page are all hopeless. They're too small to see a decent amount of detail. The one entitled "Hillsborough_disaster.jpg" is particularly useless since the crushing can't even be seen; just a bunch of people invading the field. (Huey45 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The difficulty is finding images that are free of copyright. Most available images are copyrighted by various newspapers or television organisations. Understandably, most people who were close enough to take photographs that would display the gory detail you desire, were too busy escaping death to take any pictures. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see his point. Images with a higher definition would be preferable, the current ones aren't overly illustrative. Surely so long as the definition is reduced from the original and its not quite the full portion then we are within the letter of the rules. We might be able to get better images and remain within fair-use rules. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism seems to be getting worse and worse for this article. Looking through the log, almost every change is either vandalism or removal of vandalism. Can someone familiar with the Wikipedia procedures get this article protected from the trouble-makers? It's outrageous. (Huey45 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This is an encyclopedia entry not a memorial. The list of deceased is impertinent and should be removed. Any objections? Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this image in the permanent memorials section of the article refuses to appear, despite the markup being exactly the same as the other image included in that section. It does render properly however when previewing edits. I've commented it out for now until someone more competent with markup than I am can work out where it's wrong. - Chrism would like to hear from you 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved - File:.... is sometimes the way to go - Youreallycan 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have accidentally overcooked the lead, due to not seeing the previous expansion a few minutes earlier. Any ideas on how to consolidate it? There are some important elements in both paragraphs. While mindful of POV, what I would hope is that the final paragraph of the lead can convey the widespread consensus on the version of events that came out today, from the families to the people mentioned in the paragraph I added. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tighten it up a little. Is this what you meant?

Also, wanted to clarify something. The mentions the 96 deaths, and then it says "Another 766 persons were injured. All of those were fans of Liverpool Football Club." Does this mean that of the 96 deaths some were fans of the other team while the 766 injured were Liverpool fans? Does that mean there were no police or stadium officials injured? It also implies that among the dead were individuals other than Liverpool Football Club fans. Ileanadu (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be section on the replacement of chief superintendent Brian Mole, who was the police commander at Hillsborough for a number of years, 21 days before the disaster.

Having replaced an extremely experienced match commander with essentially a novice, is a contributory factor and Phil Scraton's book notes some reasons for this - we need another source

Abz zeus (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph it says "To carry the injured, supporters tore down advertising hoardings ..." Is "boardings" meant instead? I'm from the other side of the pond and know you Brits have some funny words for things. ;-)

In one of the later paragraphs it says "advertising boards." Is "boardings" a word? Ileanadu (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoardings would be correct usage. Keith D (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is in the news at present (September 2012). Shouldn't there be a tag heading the article to indicate that it it is in the news? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That tag is generally reserved for articles which are posted on the Main Page's In the news section. There is currently a discussion about Hillsborough here. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 10:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• September 2012 Hillsborough disaster report (7.25 megabytes). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You'll see we already have a section on the new report, and links to the report and the HIP website. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed reference to the Heysel Stadium Disaster from this section, though it's necessary to explain the reason why, to avoid accusation of censorship. According to The Roots of Football Hooliganism (Routledge) and Hooligans (Milo Books), the first fences were erected in 1974. Manchester United was relegated and [[Red Army (football)]Red Army]] hooligans travelled around the country causing mayhem, stabbing opposing fans, invading the pitch and halting play. Author Dominic Sandbrook, in his book State of Emergency, writes: "Officials had been talking of installing steel fences for years, but hesitated because of safety, cost and image concerns. Manchester United, though, had been ordered to install fences in the summer of 1974, and where they led others followed." To be clear, almost every single football club attracted an undesirable element that would cause serious trouble both home and away. See List of hooligan firms. (Liverpool erected fences in 1978-1979 to stop fans from invading the playing field and swarming the players whenever they paraded a trophy.) In this context, it is potentially confusing that an event that occurred nine years later -- in 1985, conincidentally involving Liverpool fans -- should serve as the sole example of football hooliganism in English football. I do not believe this section requires specific examples of violence, in any case. It should be enough to explain that hooliganism was a growing concern in the early 1970s and that English clubs took a variety of measures to contain the problem, including the erection of fencing. — ThePowerofX 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]