This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 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 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). Merseyside 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sheffield 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Yorkshire 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fans in the stadium were literally crushed to death. EpicBlockClutch (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: the sourcing does not say this, nor did the coroner's inquests. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did. I quote from the following source: "The jury found match commander Ch Supt David Duckenfield was "responsible for manslaughter by gross negligence" due to a breach of his duty of care."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36138337 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.205.157 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph currently reads: "This resulted in overcrowding of those pens and the crush." It should instead read "This act of gross negligence resulted in overcrowding of those pens and the crush."

That is what the inquest found, as per the source provided above. The previous person (who removed my edit) has not responded to my source. I can only presume he therefore accepts that he was wrong and that there is no further valid objection to this edit. 143.58.205.157 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DROPTHESTICK. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD already says "The second coroner's inquests were held from 1 April 2014 to 26 April 2016. They ruled that the supporters were unlawfully killed owing to grossly negligent failures by police and ambulance services to fulfil their duty of care." Anyone with an attention span long enough to read the entire lead rather than just the opening paragraph will come across the phrase "gross negligence".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. How come you didn't know that then, when you were falsely asserting above that the sourcing did not support my edit?

Could that be because you hadn't actually read the full paragraph yourself and thus didn't actually know the full picture?

Thus, I think you've just demonstrated my point for me: this critical information needs to be stated up front so that it isn't missed (Personal attack removed). 143.58.205.157 (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Get over it. Move on. Your attitude will get you absolutely nowhere. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soetermans. You like throwing around links to pages (without making an actual argument). So I've done some reading, and I have a page to throw back at you. This one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling

That page perfectly describes you (and IanMacM). The following passages are particularly pertinent.

"Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion.

Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo) – and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists.

...

In multiple stalled discussions, proponents of the change are likely to make patient and good faith repeated attempts to discuss the substantive points at issue. Trying different approaches, some posts might get long and repetitive. So another diverting/delaying tactic used at such a point is for the stonewallers to accuse the frustrated proponents of change of too much editing, either in the form of tendentious editing, or battleground mentality, or making TLDR or WP:DE/WP:IDHT posts."

Sorry, but I'm not giving in to your stonewalling. You are wrong. You and IanMacM both know you're wrong. That's why you both tried to censor me earlier by removing my comment. Neither of you have ever produced any substantive rationale as to why my proposed edit should not be allowed. The best you could do was assert that my edit was factually inaccurate. And when I debunked that, you had nothing. 143.58.205.157 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is edit protected. Others disagree with you. Move on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And do not change the request again. It has been answered. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your status quo stonewalling. If you wish to contribute something productive to this discussion, feel free to do so. 143.58.205.157 (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

This is largely a stylistic decision, it's perfectly normal, and IMO reads well to first say what happened at an event, whether natural or man-made, then to say what caused it and who or what was to blame. 143.58.205.157, you want to turn that on its head and ascribe blame before informing what the blame is for. I agree with the others, this wouldn't be an improvement and is somewhat clumsy English. Pincrete (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The edit request template is intended for minor, noncontroversial edits. As this is now self-evidently not that, this template is not the appropriate venue to request this change. PianoDan (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for the following change to be made to the lead:

This is to clarify that Bland, like Devine, also suffered brain damage on the day.

100.7.34.111 (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly rephrased your suggestion for clarity, thus: "Ninety-four people died on the day; one more died in hospital days later, Tony Bland died in 1993, and in 2021, a 97th. Both Bland and the 97th victim had suffered irreversible brain damage on the day." I hope this addresses your concerns.Pincrete (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! However, you forgot to mark the edit request template as answered. I have done that for you tho, so don't worry. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]