Jump to content

Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Committed/died by suicide

USER:PatGallacher, regarding this edit, which you reinstated. There is, AFAIK, no general rule on WP to avoid 'committed' suicide, it is the standard UK term and the 'PC' alternative is ungrammatical, mis leading since it implies something passive, and frankly silly in its logic IMO. Anyone who thinks that the gut-wrenching emotional distress of having a friend or loved one die, especially by killing themselves, is somehow made better by avoiding a verb which is disliked simply because it also is the verb used for crimes and 'sins', lives on a different planet from me.

I was thanked by another editor for making the edit I did, so I am obviously not alone in thinking that the more common term is simpler and clearer. One cannot 'die by suicide' just as one cannot 'die by murder', Charles I didn't 'die by regicide'. One can 'die by drowning, gunshot, etc' ie the means - I therefore have no objection to 'shot/hung/whatever themselves' or some other construction to record what happened, but this new phrasing makes no sense and is a bizarre construction which simply draws attention to the term it is avoiding IMO.

WP:BRD requires that when a change has been challenged, as this has, it is up to the person wishing to make the change to establish consensus, in this case this is the IP or you. Therefore I am reverting your change to the text which has been stable for a very long time, and which in my opinion is the more natural, clear and grammatical term. Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"committed" suicide is a relic of when it was illegal; that has not been the case for 60 years in the UK. In British English usage, "committed" is more common, but that does not mean that any Wikipedia article is obliged to use that formulation. Many publications avoid the term and recommend against its use. For example:
Also, I do not believe that you have the right to revert multiple editors who disagree with you, nor that any essay could be interpreted as giving you that right. That three different people made this edit, and you reverted each of them, already suggests a consensus in favour of the change. I agree with the change, and also think there should be a guideline recommending that "committed" be avoided. ThePointlessBlock (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
ThePointlessBlock "That three different people made this edit, and you reverted each of them, already suggests a consensus in favour of the change." - Incorrect. The edit was made by 2001:56A:7BA3:BD00:25BE:E558:A11C:1603 at 22:32, 9 November 2021 (the B part of BRD) and was reverted by Pincrete at 23:07 (the R part of BRD). What should have happened then is that the D part of BRD came into play. Instead, we get 46.208.236.129 reverting at 23:57, Pincrete reverting at 11:32 on 10 November, PatGallacher reverting at 14:13 and Pincrete reverting at 15:27. So we are now at WP:B-R×5-D.
The article has followed what the source says for a long time. The established consensus is for the common usage of "committed suicide". Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Sources allow us to verify facts. They do not oblige anyone to use any particular language. The source given for the statement we are talking about does not use the word "committed" anyway.
As for what should have happened, you're referring to a procedure that very clearly describes itself as optional. It cannot be said that anything from that page "should" have happened. ThePointlessBlock (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Throwing my hat into the ring, I think the article should use "committed suicide". I read the article on suicide, and while I can understand where "died by suicide" is coming from, "committed suicide" is used a lot more. FieryRaven (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC) :But, like I said above, it's increasingly disfavoured. See the links that I posted to major organisations which recommend against it. Consider that many previously common terms are now considered outdated or offensive. For example, see this chart comparing the usage of "mental retardation" against "intellectual disability": [1]. A reputable encyclopaedia would aspire to be ahead of such curves, not behind them. ThePointlessBlock (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I left this post simply as a record, despite the edit conflict!
There are two aspects to this, the first is WP procedures and conventions. These very clearly state that the onus is on someone wanting to add or modify long-term text to justify the change and establish agreement on talk if the addition/change is challenged. It was challenged by me and has been since by others, so since my first revert of the IP's change, the onus has been on those wanting to make the change to establish consensus. Since those wanting a change are newcomers to the article, and fairly new to WP, I made a point of opening a discussion here, even though it was not my responsibility to do so. In so far as WP has an 'official' position on the committing/dying by choice, I believe there was a discussion a year or two back which concluded that although 'dying by' is gaining ground, it's usage is still relatively uncommon. On WP we usually follow, rather than attempt to lead or regulate English usage.
Regarding the term itself, I have already made my opinion plain that the 'dying by' IMO is fairly grotesquely artificial, misleading and unclear. I am well aware - and said above - that many, or possibly most, of the uses of 'commit' were attached to crimes or 'sihns' originally, but the origins or literal meanings of words or terms often have little to do with actual current usage. Schools that offer students 'pastoral care' don't think of the students as sheep, despite 'pastoral' originally referring to sheep-keeping. If I say a man is hysterical I am not saying he has a disturbed womb - or any kind of womb - despite hystera being Gk for womb and the term arising from a misunderstanding by Gks of the causes of hysteria. If I say that I am "sitting by myself", I am not saying that there are two of me sitting alonside each other.
I don't have the slightest objection to either finding an alternative term for 'taking one's own life', or being more specific about the actual means used, but object fairly strongly to this unnatural term which, to my ears, is simply drawing attention to itself in a way that the everyday verb does not. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
UK style guides say to avoid "commit suicide" and instead use "kill oneself". "Commit suicide" is an idiom which violates NPOV, based on its dictionary definition. May we change it to "killed themselves"?
Say that someone killed him or herself rather than “committed suicide”, Guardian and Observer style guide
The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines say that "kills oneself" or "takes one's life" are preferable options. BBC News style guide
Commit suicide: a phrase used to mean "to kill yourself", which is now considered offensive because it suggests that doing this is a crime. Cambridge Dictionary
Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: "Committed" is antiquated, plain and simple. Thanks for clarifying the UK English preferred terminology; "died by suicide" seems to be preferred only in US English. Agreed this should be changed everywhere outside of direct quotes. VQuakr (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with the analysis, no one using the term imagines that suicide is a crime. The Grauniad is my own personal favourite newspaper, but its English is probably more self-consciously liberal than most UK usage. However, that said, I don't personally object to either 'killed themselves' or 'took their own lives'. The second may seem euphemistic to some, but again personally, it seems more appropriately sensitive to me. I would agree to either or to any alternative clear & 'natural' phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I changed it to "killed themselves".[2]
I understand that no one imagines suicide is a crime when they use the term, but we have to go by what the RS say words mean. There are many words people use which they do not realize are offensive. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Like 'pastoral' and 'hysteria'? Excuse my scepticism, but purging the language of every word or phrase whose roots do not align with modern sensibilities is neither possible, nor IMO, desirable. 'Sins' as well as crimes are committed, thus I personally suspect that 'commit' is more likely to have acquired this use for religious/moral, rather than legal reasons. Suicide has only rarely been illegal AFAIK anywhere and, for obvious reasons, hardly ever punished legally. But I have no objection to your change whatsoever. Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Suicide legislation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

External media

... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Behaviour of fans" inaccuracy and undue weight

Under the heading "Taylor inquiry: Behaviour of fans", it states "Lord Taylor concluded that the behaviour of Liverpool fans, including accusations of drunkenness, were secondary factors, and said that most fans were: 'not drunk, nor even the worse for drink'. He concluded that this formed an exacerbating factor but that police, seeking to rationalise their loss of control, overestimated the element of drunkenness in the crowd. The report dismissed the theory, put forward by South Yorkshire Police, that fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets were contributing factors."
This is the only separate heading in the article which explicitly purports to address the actual behavior of fans, but that it does not do; it only says that they were not drunk, and that forged tickets were not an issue. It says nothing about the behavior of the fans (it is quite possible to misbehave while sober, and while using legitimate tickets). My concern is that that the summation as presented will give undue weight to one report's findings (and given how unreliable assertions were shown to be in parts of all of the reports, that is problematic). For example, under the heading "Before the disaster: Venue" it states "At the time of the disaster, most English football stadiums had high steel fencing between the spectators and the playing field in response to pitch invasions. Hooliganism had affected the sport for some years, and was particularly virulent in England. From 1974, when these security standards were put in place, crushes occurred in several English stadiums." And under the heading "Disaster: Build up" it states "Opposing supporters were segregated, as is common at domestic matches in England...Although Liverpool had more supporters, Nottingham Forest was allocated the larger area, to avoid the approach routes of rival fans crossing." These certainly give a vivid impression that the misbehavior of fans was both well-established and common, and that it actually required structural differences in the way attendees were accommodated (seemingly unique among all spectator sports). So characterizing the "behaviour of fans" as somehow being benign due to the absence of drunkenness or forged tickets, is nonsensical. Either the heading should more accurately reflect the content, or the content should actually address the claim made in the heading. Bricology (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The section you refer to is specifically about the Taylor Report so it summarises the findings of that report. We also include the Stuart-Smith scrutiny and the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, summarising what came out of those two as well. It sounds as if you are proposing we introduce a new section analysing the behaviour of the fans in general. Do you really think that would be fair and appropriate in this article? With respect, I suggest that that's a rabbit hole we do not want to go down! Considering there's a separate Taylor Report article that goes into more detail about his findings, we should probably cut this section down anyway, including the removal of the contentious subsection that you refer to (which does seem to stick out like a sore thumb). Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the section does not need expanding, in fact the Behaviour section is very succinct about Taylor's main findings. I think Bricology is implying that we should go 'fishing' for behavioural factors that Taylor didn't specifically refute. That isn't how we work. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillsborough_disaster/Archive_6&oldid=1260751543"