Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:08, 25 April 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages'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 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages'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 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 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Low‑importance Hillsborough disaster is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. A news item involving Hillsborough disaster was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 September 2012.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 15, 2004, April 15, 2005, April 15, 2006, April 15, 2007, April 15, 2013, and April 15, 2014.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Hillsborough Misplaced Pages posts: Government pledges 'urgent inquiries'". BBC News. 2014-04-25.

Image issues

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)

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

Lead

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)

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)

I know little about this disaster and and came here to learn about it but it would be very odd if, of 766 injured people, all were liverpool fans and yet it the 96 deaths included non-liverpool fans. The injuries and deaths would have had similar causes and in British Football stadia it is normal to keep many stands for the exclusive use of fans of just one club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.76.45 (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

chief superintendent Brian Mole

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)

"Advertising hoardings" or advertising boardings?

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)

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

This needs a tag to indicate it is in the news

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)

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)

New information source

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

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)

• As far as I can see the Hillsborough Independent Panel didn't claim that there hads been "strenuous attempts" by the police to deflect blame onto the plans. This would be consistent with the HIP's policy of providing information and letting others draw conclusions. I have therefore deleted a reference to this from the Article. However the "strenuous attempts" claim does seem to have been widely reported in the media so I could be wrong. Bur for the moment I think it should be excluded - there's a lynch mob atmosphere already.Elthamboy (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Before the disaster

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 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)

I think that Heysel is relevant in setting the context for Hillsborough. Heysel had happened only four years earlier and English clubs were still banned from Europe at the time of Hillsborough. The (non-football) public had a negative opinion football fans generally but, due to Heysel, of Liverpool supporters specifically. This meant that the public was more inclined to believe the lies put out by the police, including that it was the fans who had caused the disaster. Even after the Taylor Report some people held on to the view that the fans were to blame.

If Forest had been given the Leppings Lane end and 96 Forest fans had died then, had the police put out the same lies, I think the public would have been more sceptical. So, while Heysel is not relevant to the Hillsborough disaster itself; it is relevant to the cover-up and the reaction of the public. I'm not sure where it would best fit into the article, though. Stanley Oliver (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More accurately, Heysel is relevant in setting the context for Police deception and obfuscation. Yes, I agree entirely. Heysel was a pure act of thuggery. It was the final straw that saw all English clubs banned from competing in Europe. Therefore it was easy for senior officers to conflate two separate incidents and create a fictitious narrative in order to conceal simple individual failings. I think, given the weight of evidence now in the public domain, bolstered by countless reliable sources, this article requires a new section between The disaster and The Taylor inquiry that explicitly makes this point. Something along these lines:

The disaster

Police obfuscation

The Taylor inquiry

Lord Justice Taylor recognised how senior Police officers had attempted to control the message following the disaster, but I doubt he could have imagined the amount of evidence that was withheld from his enquiry — ThePowerofX 11:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Hillsborough Independent Panel article

This discussion is continued from Talk:Hillsborough Independent Panel#Redirect.

• I don't think Hillsborough Independent Panel is helpful or useful; rather it should be a redirect to this article. Thoughts? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support It does seem unnecessary as there is a large section on it here with most of the content of the article giving a good 'cut and thrust' of it. After merging redirect to the relevant section here. --wintonian 23:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• The creator of that article has been blocked for edit warring, and three separate users attempted to redirect it to Hillsborough disaster#Hillsborough Independent Panel report. The simple solution would probably be to redirect once more, given that at least seven users support this course of action (here, there and at WT:FOOTY), and the only user against was blocked specifically for removing the redirect. I can't due it myself due to 3RR. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 01:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I think I would feel more comfortable if it were to go to AfD as has been suggested in order to gain broader consensus in light of the dispute. Of course if there is a sudden influx of people all saying we should merge and redirect then that is clearly not necessary. Either way thats just my thoughts, but not having been involved the dispute I'll leave it to others to decide what to do. --wintonian 01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Merge, preferably Speedy Merge given the significant number of responses on the Hillsborough Independent Panel talk page. The Panel page says nothing that should not be said here; the only content actually specific to the panel on that page is the list of names of the participants. VQuakr (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I just make the point that the list of participants is incorporated into the prose in this article (second paragraph of the independent panel section). It is formatted uniquely in the forked article, but is not new information. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 08:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect for the following reasons:
  • Unanimous consensus among unblocked editors (myself, Tagishsimon, wintonian, VQuakr, Struway2, Peridon and Lemonade51) that the page should redirect to the relevant section here.
  • The fact that DePiep's most recent removal of the redirect was a breach of 3RR, which resulted in a 48 hour block for edit-warring, with a second admin stating that the only reason he did not block is because he considered himself involved with the user
    • I repeat: the status quo of two articles has been achieved through edit-warring which resulted in a block. Without this edit-warring, the page would currently redirect to this article.
  • Hillsborough Independent Panel is copyvio, as it fails to comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 Licence (attribution).
  • Even after the expansion, Hillsborough Independent Panel is a near-exact fork of the appropriate section in this article. Don't let the section headers fool you: the prose itself was a direct port. And don't let the list of names at the bottom fool you: these names were already included in the prose – no new information is communicated. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis for the copyvio claim? Insufficient attribution of copying with Misplaced Pages can be mitigated without deletion, and Depiep provided the source page in a rough sort of way. VQuakr (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's easily resolved, but lack of attributions is one of many reasons I have given above for a speedy redirect. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 08:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have redirected. The texts of Hillsborough Independent Panel and Hillsborough disaster#Hillsborough Independent Panel were just about identical. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I can note that the original page did not have a link tot the source . Apart from not sourced, it was a great encyclopedic section. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Best way forward: I agree. Page Hillsborough_Independent_Panel should stay a redirect until it is independent enough to be on its own. Solved. How come I did not think of that? -DePiep (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tottenham near tragedy

This is a quote from this section. The sentence apparently classifies some of the casualties as less than "serious" which I think is inappropriate. Unless someone can root out (and clarify to show) some other valid meaning, I move that ", many of them serious" be removed. Dice 001 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This sentence refers to broken limbs. Lord Taylor wrote of the Tottenham and Wolverhampton incident in 1981:

"Those being crushed called for the perimeter gates to be opened onto the track. There was no immediate reaction, according to Mr Vaux who was there, but fortunately a police Inspector gave instructions and the gates were then opened. About 250 came out onto the track. There were broken arms, legs and ribs and 38 were treated either in hospital or by the St John Ambulance Brigade. It is clear from the documents (a) that the turnstile readings showed the capacity figure of 10,100 had been exceeded by over 400 (b) that the police shut off further access to the terraces because of crushing, and (c) the police view after the event was that the capacity figure of 10,100 in the Safety Certificate was too high. This latter view was communicated to the Club by the Chief Superintendent then in command of F Division but it was not pursued."

We can describe the injuries sustained, rather than saying "many of them serious". — ThePowerofX 10:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Accounts from Tottenham fans are scarily familiar:

"Women and children were being crushed. I am tall and able to take care of myself, but I felt my ribs cracking. Not until 3.10 did the police become aware of the dangerous situation and begin letting people on to the touch-line."

Another:

"I can remember clearly people pleading with the police to open the gate at the front of the pitch to relieve the crush but there was obviously no one senior to make the decision to allow the gate to be opened. Fans started to scream, throw and spit at the police in an attempt to get the gate opened. Finally the gate was opened but then because the opening was higher than the floor people couldnt raise their knees to get out of the opening because of the crush so people were having to be pulled out from pitch side."

Video of the incident here and some written accounts here. — ThePowerofX 13:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

While that may add to the article independently of my concern, my point is that the sentence structure implies that many (but not all) of the casualties were serious. Casualties meaning serious injury or death, this seems inappropriate, especially since to most (many) the word means only (or at least implies primarily) fatalities/deaths, which I am uncomfortable grading in seriousness. Dice 001 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How about ...resulting in 38 injuries, many of them serious? — ThePowerofX 13:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

To avoid value judgements, how about ....resulting in 38 injuries, including broken arms, legs and ribs. Keeps it factual as referenced above and arguably provides more impact as to the seriousness of the injuries. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. — ThePowerofX 16:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Sun on 13/9/12

Image:The_Sun_Hillsborough_Real_Truth_headline_130912.jpg I noticed that that day's Sun had a cover recalling 'The Truth', and I thought it might be useful for inclusion in the article. I invite anyone who wishes to do so to clean it up, edit out my shoes and reduce the resolution to something reasonable. --AdamM (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Only months later do I see the thumbnail was removed per non-free content usage policy, and then the image itself was deleted for being a non-free orphan. Well that's just lovely. If anyone still wants it leave me a message on my talk page. --AdamM (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing from this article?

Unless I'm missing this, the article currently doesn't convey anything at all about the family's campaign; does not explain why the Stuart-Smith scrutiny or the HIP were demanded or required. Oh, sorry - we say in HIP: "In the years after the disaster there was a feeling that the full facts were not in the public domain and a suspicion that some facts were deliberately covered up. The Hillsborough Family Support Group, led by Trevor Hicks, campaigned for the release of all relevant documents." I tend to think we should be saying more, sooner, about the campaign, probably by way of a mention in the lead; and campaign reactions to Taylor, the inquests, Stuart-Smith, and HIP.

Next I think missing from HIP is discussion of consequences and reactions - not least SYP thinking about referring themselves to the IPPC; and the media consensus that new inquests are required, and that a number of lines of prosecution exist.

Finally, I think the article needs additional material on the political & cultural context, particularly the thread between the Tories and SYP post the miner's strike. There are plenty of RS for a discussion of this.

I hope to join in & add some of this, but for now am as interested in identifying perceived gaps. (Oh, and removal of Cracker: good) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you entirely. A lot more can be said of the HIP. I plan to read their report shortly (wish to add one additional sub section regarding poor signage before proceeding) so I can help out with this. A lot more can be said about Police misdirection and obfuscation. Possibly an entire section given the amount of reliable sources available. Not sure where to place it, though. — ThePowerofX 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC Panorama - 20 May 2013 additions

The BBC Panorama "Hillsborough - How They Buried the Truth" piece has just been broadcast.

• Article says 1 ambulance entered stadium, programs says 3 ambulances entered stadium - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22566230

Likely many more corrections for the article.

-- 21:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefishy (talk • contribs)

Universal English?

This article utilizes British English in a way that makes it difficult to understand from a non-British background. The true meaning of the disaster and what happened is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.99.105 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

May be you could give a couple of examples. Keith D (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Recentism in the lead

I have just read the article and there appears to be quite a lot of recentism (WP:RECENT) in the lead. It appears as if, as the story has developed over the past few years, this information has gradually accumulated in the lead. The reason I noticed it is that we allocate 324 words for the disaster itself (what the article should be mainly about), 46 words on the official inquiry and the significant changes that resulted because of it, but 229 words solely about events in the past few years. I understand that it is natural to want to put this in, but we must remember that the lead is only supposed to summarise the overall events and it is not helpful to have a lopsided lead. As an example, is the long sentence containing Andy Burnham really needed? I have not made any changes because I know this is a potentially controversial topic. I thought I would copy here a suggested version of the final three paragraphs. Please let me know what you think. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1990 official inquiry into the disaster, the Taylor Report, concluded that "the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control." The findings of the report resulted in the elimination of standing terraces at all major football stadiums in England, Wales and Scotland.

After the release of previously unavailable documents, the Hillsborough Independent Panel concluded that no Liverpool fans were responsible for the deaths, and that attempts had been made by the authorities to conceal what happened, including the alteration by police of statements relating to the disaster. The facts in the report prompted apologies from Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, David Crompton, amongst others, for their organisations' respective roles. The Panel concluded that up to nearly half of the fatalities might have been avoided had they received prompt medical treatment. The report revealed "multiple failures" by other emergency services and public bodies that contributed to the death toll. In response to the report, a new inquest was granted in the High Court with the possibility of overturning the original verdicts of accidental death.

By the way, the end of the current final sentence seems a bit inappropriate in tone: 'On 19 December 2012, a new inquest was granted in the High Court, to the relief of the families and friends of the Hillsborough deceased.' I shall not make any changes until I hear back from you. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some criminal charges against the organisers for the un-timly deaths of 96 true liverpool fans? Rob Kemp life long liverpool supporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.191.4 (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Police Witness Statements Altered - A Cover Up?

'The findings concluded that 164 witness statements had been altered. Of those statements, 116 were amended to remove or change negative comments about South Yorkshire Police.' It's worth reading the full report about these alterations. Much is made of them, but in reality they seem quite innocuous. Draft witness statements were collected from police officers present and then checked by the force's solicitors who in turn recommended that a significant number be changed in various, often small, ways. The reasons for the suggested changes varied, but included unprofessional language, subjective comments about both fans and fellow officers, and observations on things the officers had not actually seen. The idea seems to have arisen that these alterations meant that there was 'a police cover up', but the last investigation, which examined this question in detail, does not seem suport such a belief since all the changes were (a) suggested by the solicitors and (b) seem to have been logical ones having regard to the fact that the purpose of a witness statement is to record what one actually saw or experienced. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.111.107 (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The phrase you mention is a direct quote from the summary to the report ( http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/Section-1/summary/page-13/ ) and so is entirely appropriate to this article. Attempting an interpretation, as you have done, violates WP:NPOV. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages edits from government IP addresses

This is starting to break as news at the moment and the government is looking into it. Probably worth adding to controversies once enough third-party detail is out there. In particular, it should be made clear that this doesn't mean this was an official decision, as the Liverpool Echo article says:

"However, an official inquiry is necessary to establish exactly which department and which people are responsible for the changes as the IP addresses cover thousands of Whitehall computers."

Links so far: 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Guardian has got it now see Hillsborough: government computers allegedly used to insult victims.— Rod 20:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And the Telegraph see Insulting revisions to Misplaced Pages entry on Hillsborough made from Government computers.— Rod 20:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mirror version Hillsborough insults added to Misplaced Pages pages using GOVERNMENT computers.— Rod 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

ITV now has Hillsborough insults 'traced back to govt computers'.— Rod 21:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And the BBC Hillsborough Misplaced Pages changes: Government promises 'urgent inquiries'.— Rod 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Which edits are being cited? What ip numbers?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits during 2009. None so far I can see from 194.60.38.198, our usual Parliamentary friends. Appalling stuff, from individual departments "... entries were posted from IP addresses used by computers based in government departments, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Office of the Solicitor General." From The Guardian Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Liverpool Echo mentions two addresses used from "34 known to public from the Government Secure Intranet (GSI)" Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the mention of the Treasury comes from the written answer (see below) and the other two departments are the Liverpool Echo stirring things up, since they relate to Hillsborough. The two IP addresses are shared by all government departments, so there's no basis for singling out those particular ones and no way of telling, just from the IP address, which department the edit came from. Only the government will be able to trace the sources of the edits, assuming they still have the relevant logs. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

195.92.40.49 and 62.25.106.209 are the IP addresses mentioned in a 2008 written answer from Angela Eagle . In the article that broke the story , the Liverpool Echo journalist has looked at all the edits from those IPs, I think. They don't specify the IPs in the article, but they are clear about their source:

"The web of computers is tracked online by a handful of IP addresses, the details of which were released by Wallasey MP Angela Eagle following a parliamentary question in 2008, when she was a Treasury minister.

Analysis of Misplaced Pages’s revision history revealed the same unique ID codes were used to amend the Hillsborough and Anfield pages with a series of sick jokes."

The article mentions several edits and gives 2009 and 2012 as the dates for a couple of them.

I used to work as a network engineer for the ISP that provides the Government Secure Intranet and I can say that those two address are firewalls that provide internet access (via network address translation) to pretty much the entire civil service - so thousands and thousands of people will be sharing those addresses to access the internet from work, from the lowest admin assistant all the way to the top. Most likely they were by fans of other clubs trolling and unaware that they'd leave a trace. I'd be surprised if the Government has the logs to track down the individuals responsible. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs - this article:  ; Anfield: . I think that covers everything reported - I went back as far as 2007 on both IPs and didn't find anything else. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone in the community for their customary vigilance and competence. If there are any press enquiries that end up here we will be able to explain, yet again, how Misplaced Pages works. To quote user Rexx about this page 'our system works. But that's not news.' Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Reverted in 4 minutes, 3 hours 28 minutes and 9 minutes respectively, which may even compare well to the comments sections of some of the sites that are carrying this story. NebY (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting picked up widely now, in addition to those already mentioned: Essentially they are all variations on the original Liverpool Echo piece, but I notice that the story is already starting to mutate. From the Daily Mail:

"Further abusive revisions were traced to IP addresses of computers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Treasury and the Solicitor General’s office. "

and

"The revelations came to light after 34 IP addresses of Whitehall computers were disclosed via a parliamentary question."

Neither of these statements is correct: the parliamentary answer only named two addresses (see above) and neither address can be traced to specific departments without further investigation. The article also gives the impression of many separate changes, but the diffs (above) only show three edits in total from the two IP addresses and all the changes mentioned are covered by just two of them.

Until the results of the official investigation are published, I'd suggest that any editors who want to add this to the article are cautious about how they use the media reports - the press doesn't currently have enough information to do much more than speculate. Even calling them Whitehall address may turn out to be misleading in terms of how that is typically understood. The 195.92.40.49 gateway is in Leeds and is likely to cover offices in the northern half of the country, the 62.25.106.209 gateway is in Watford and probably covers the south, although not exclusively London or specifically Whitehall. To pick a couple of possible scenarios, a northern edit could have come from Quarry House and a southern one from the DVLA. So nothing is going to be that clear until the government investigates and reports its findings. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Any other pages involved?

I'm doing a radio interview about this later today (5 Live). Were any other pages involved? Or are we talking about literally three IP edits from two and five years ago? - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has two more from Anfield: "The words ‘nothing for the victims of the Heysel stadium disaster’ were also added to a description of the Hillsborough memorial at the Anfield stadium" and "On another occasion, the description of a statue of Liverpool manager Bill Shankly on the Anfield Misplaced Pages page was revised to change the well-known quote ‘He made the people happy’ to the bizarre ‘He made a wonderful lemon drizzle cake’." NebY (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, those were one edit: , reverted 4 min later. Thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, only the next edit was 4 minutes later (also from a GSi address, and adding contentious, but not insulting stuff - it was reverted 5 minutes later , but the first edit remained), it took almost two days for that edit to completely disappear . 2.25.115.116 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just as a side-note: I've been extra cautious around Daily Mail stories about Misplaced Pages ever since "Christina Aguilera fluffs the lines to the National Anthem at the Super Bowl - by singing botched lyrics found on Misplaced Pages", when we found that the lyrics had been changed on Misplaced Pages after the event but still in time to make a good story. NebY (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, above, they've already managed to mangle the story when simply copying it from the Liverpool Echo original. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The origin of the story is the Liverpool Echo and that only mentions Hillsborough (this page) and Anfield as being changed. Those are the search terms I used when looking through the logs. Of the diffs I provided, above, isn't insulting and is not referenced in the article. The following quote from the article is covered by this edit :

"A series of sickening revisions to the site began on the 20th anniversary of the 1989 tragedy, when “Blame Liverpool fans” was anonymously added to the Hillsborough section of the encyclopedia site."

The rest is partially covered by this edit but I'll quote what the article says because that edit doesn't cover everything (I've bolded the bits that aren't accounted for).

"Computers on Whitehall’s secure intranet were used again in 2012 to change the phrase “You’ll never walk alone” to “You’ll never walk again” and later “You’ll never w*** alone.”

"A further amendment from a government machine includes changes to the phrase “This is Anfield”, which appears above the players’ tunnel at the club's ground, to “This is a S***hole.”

"The words “nothing for the victims of the Heysel stadium disaster” were also added to a description of the Hillsborough memorial at the Reds’ stadium.

"On another occasion, the description of a Bill Shankly statue on the Anfield Misplaced Pages page was revised to change the well-known quote “He made the people happy” to “He made a wonderful lemon drizzle cake.”"

The edit I found changes "This is Anfield" to "This Is A Field" not "This is a Shithole" - and there are no other edits on either page for 62.25.106.209 or 195.92.40.49 that I could find (someone may want to double check this). That means that "This is a Shithole" and “You’ll never wank alone.” were either made by a different IP or IPs or were made earlier than I searched (to about mid 2007), assuming the reporter isn't mistaken. Probably the best thing to do to get the full details would be to contact the journalist, Oliver Duggan, at the Liverpool Echo or via Twitter or his website . 2.25.115.116 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Interview just done - prerecorded (they're prerecording everything they can about Hillsborough from a great deal of legal caution about the issue) - technical stuff about how to edit (click "edit"), what gets recorded when you edit Misplaced Pages as an IP, that our policy is to keep things as open as possible and only lock when needed, that we're unlikely to change this policy (since we can revert rubbish easily, and can lock pages as needed if necessary), that anyone can see the history tab and look through it and that if you create a login then people can't see your IP, but they can see your track record of changes 'cos that's how you accumulate reputation. Wonder what they'll use from it ... it'll be on 5 Live Drive this afternoon - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of the GSI network being blocked from editing wikipedia? This network is only used by ordinary civil servants who during working hours should not have any business editing wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.236.44 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocking those two addresses would probably do it (I doubt they've added another gateway since 2008) although some parts of government probably access the internet from different address (although not technically part of the government, parliament has its own IP range, for example). I think you'd have go pretty high up, maybe start at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard and see what they suggest. Certainly I don't think the GSi firewalls will be able to block editing Misplaced Pages without also blocking reading it, which many civil servants would have good reason to do, as part of their work. So it'd have to be done here - I suspect that goes against the ethos of Misplaced Pages though and they'd say it's down to the government to police their employees. And the GSi admins can monitor the talk pages here and keep logs of all the activity on their network - so it's not like the don't have the tools to discipline staff members using their time inappropriately. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Media coverage of this has failed to emphasise how old some of the edits are. Much of it was reverted within a few minutes, so apart from the IP address being registered to the UK government, there isn't much of a story here. Unless the UK government has some very old logs, the chances of tracing the individuals concerned looks remote.--♦IanMacM♦ 18:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologise. I meant is there any reason why Misplaced Pages could not block editing from those addresses, like they do from other IP ranges that prove to be up to no good? I imagine that staff will be disciplined depending on how far reaching the investigation is 31.87.147.158 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I understood that, maybe my reply wasn't clear enough, sorry. My understanding is that Misplaced Pages doesn't generally block shared IP addresses indefinitely since it would punish many editors who are not vandals (both address have been temporarily blocked several times, see the block logs). And that whether or not people should be editing from work is not Misplaced Pages's concern. So I think it would be unusual for them to block these two addresses. I'm not the person you need to ask if you want this doing, though. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Then again, whether or not people editing from work is an issue, should not Misplaced Pages be concerned as to how and why the British Government departments might have been using them to put out dis-information? 78.147.90.193 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalising Misplaced Pages articles with tasteless jokes is not putting out dis-information and is reverted as soon as it is spotted anyway. As for actual dis-information (and it'd be nice to see an example), vigilant editors applying WP:V and WP:RS is the traditional remedy, no matter what the source. Blocking government IPs on principle doesn't seem to me like any sort of answer. WP:COI can also be applied in editing decisions without the need for arbitrary blocks. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Details of government investigation announced

From the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-27165844

Relevant quote from the Cabinet Office:

"At this time, we have no reason to suspect that the Hillsborough edits involve any particular department, nor more than one or two individuals in 2009 and 2012.

"As the first incident happened five years ago and there are hundreds of thousands of people on the government's network, it may prove challenging to identify who was involved, but we are exhausting every option."

That's already adding important context to some of the media speculation so far. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Knowing the turnover in staff through redundancies, there's a good chance that someone employed in 2009 in the Civil Service is no longer there. Not that excuses their edits, of course. Lugnuts 19:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding important context to an un-informed press story'

Or diverting attention long enough for the media storm to blow over? At this time, there is little evidence to support the suggestion that it was a lone computer operator. But, whether or not it was a few "individuals", there are hints that those involved might never be found. Then again, according to Collins, Damage Limitation is an "action that is taken to make the bad results of something as small as possible, when it is impossible to avoid bad results completely." The best tactic for the powers-that-be? 78.147.90.193 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, but I'd be curious as to what plausibly sinister explanation there is for two edits in almost seven years (I looked back as far as 2007) from a network used by hundreds of thousands of civil servants, of all grades, is? Especially when the edits were quickly reverted. It doesn't look like much of a plan to me. I'd suggest it'd be best to concentrate on the terrible smear campaigns which have evidence pointing to them and avoid sullying the campaign with silly conspiracy theories. Also, Andy Burnham is overseeing the investigation, so that should be some comfort. Lastly, the only way they'll find the perpetrators is if they still have logs going back to those dates - if they haven't, that doesn't necessarily mean a conspiracy (given the size and complexity of the network and the time elapsed). Anyway, that's all I'll say - and I'd suggest that this discussion is off-topic for this talk page so shouldn't go much further. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 Inquest

NB This was originally posted, by a different editor, under Talk:Hillsborough disaster#Missing from this article? but I'm moving it to its own section so it doesn't get lost. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Currently the article does not convey the fact that a new Inquest into the Hillsboroguh Fans' deaths has begun.

Changes to the article are likely to be actually controversial or be seen to be controversial for the next year or so, regardless of source. New facts may emerge into the public domain as a alarge amount of documentation has been made available to the Coroner.

For this reason, Misplaced Pages Editors might be best seeking to lock editing for the duration and to seek expertise regarding how to edit without interfering with the Inquest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.44.174 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The above is probably one of many reasons why this article should be locked for editing, given the topic immediately above this one. This article has already been raised at WP:AN. Lets defer to the admins common sense and judgement for the time being Badanagram (attempt) 17:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles relating to high-profile court cases are not normally protected - see WP:PROTECT for policy. This is partly because this a private website based in the USA; the US and UK rules on freedom of speech during court cases are rather different and Misplaced Pages - like other organisations - doesn't take kindly to people outside the US trying to apply their rules to it. NebY (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Also, there are plenty of Misplaced Pages editors who are quick to remove material they see as inappropriate and 185 editors have this article on their watchlist. This can work very well - see above for how quickly the offensive material was removed from this article - so I expect the default will be to carry on as normal unless problems arise. If they do, there's a whole range of measures that include blocking particular editors from Misplaced Pages or barring brand new or unregistered editors. NebY (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Elephant in the Room

Lead, again

The lead is too long. At seven long paragraphs before you reach the TOC, it needs to be trimmed a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Taking it down to a tiny single paragraph is laughably bad, please revert yourself or fix it immediately to be more appropriate. Seven paras is better than next-to-nothing until you can work out what you want there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Epic, please accept that this article is the result of considerable work on a very sensitive subject by a large number of editors who are aware of the wider issues, not least the repeated wounds that the families of the dead have suffered over the last 25 years and the increasing media attention and public sympathy they have received. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative enterprise and needs you to work in a collegiate manner, not to charge in tagging and restructuring without hesitation or consultation. NebY (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

way to keep it up-to-date

"The IPCC is to also expected to launch a public appeal for more witnesses to come forward in the autumn of 2013." 68.183.43.72 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Merseyside articles
• Mid-importance Merseyside articles
• WikiProject Merseyside articles
• B-Class football articles
• Mid-importance football articles
• B-Class football in England articles
• Mid-importance football in England articles
• Football in England task force articles
• B-Class Liverpool F.C. articles
• Mid-importance Liverpool F.C. articles
• Liverpool F.C. task force articles
• B-Class Sheffield Wednesday articles
• Mid-importance Sheffield Wednesday articles
• Sheffield Wednesday F.C. task force articles
• WikiProject Football articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class Sheffield articles
• Mid-importance Sheffield articles
• B-Class Yorkshire articles
• Low-importance Yorkshire articles
• WikiProject Yorkshire articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Selected anniversaries (April 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2013)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2014)
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press