Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 11 April 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Stockholm truck attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 1 day

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2017 Stockholm truck attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2017 Stockholm truck attack at the Reference desk.

A news item involving 2017 Stockholm truck attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 April 2017.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related 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. Sweden High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Islamic Terrorism

I mean, if it walks like a duck and quarks like a duck ... this killing people with lorries is just so Islamic terrorism. And culprit actually claimed he did it for ISIS. So maybe we should MENTION it in the article? It's important. Or is knowledge not allowed on Misplaced Pages? Is this a safe space?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly this is Islamic terrorism but the media have their head in the sands and are not calling that so neither should we (wikipedia).Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the NYT writes about it AND the ISIS claims responsibility.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added it sourced to the article.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld We don't edit and add just based on hunches or what we feel. A recent car-ramming, if not a lorry one, wasn't found to have terror links (http://www.qatar-tribune.com/news-details/id/56981). And no source has mentioned the culprit making such claims that "he did it for ISIS". The only thing that has been known are that there have been reports that he had pasted pro-ISIS propaganda in the past. We edit and add based on reliable sources here. That is not safe space, or "knowledge is not allowed here", simple rules. Please follow the rules here. Any kind of OR and self-interpretation is not allowed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, using New York Times as a source is completely self-interpretation. Lol.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld So just because you say New York Times "said so", I checked it but it didn't make any report that the suspect claimed to do it for ISIS, so yes that is complete self-interpretation on your part. Some earlier reports of pro-ISIS propaganda cannot be cited as the reason here, nor any hunches or what you feel. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Also Rævhuld, your claim that ISIS "claimed" the attack is also OR as until now the group has made no such claim which it typically does. Regardless, instead of being based on anything real what the sources say, you seem to basing your claims on earlier reports of the suspect posting pro-ISIS propaganda in the past. That is complete OR, not allowed to any extent here. Please be careful with your edits and what you say in your comments so as to not commit OR and self-interpretation as well as deliberate assumption of bad faith instead of blaming others simply based on what you seem to think. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added all notable non-OR material without any obvious attempt to fit any particular POV on religion or facts or group-based which your edits seemed to be doing so. We only rely on reliable sources here. So I've added their statement about local media reporting that a suspect had expressed sympathy for ISIS in past. No edits that are OR, self-interpretation and merely to fit a POV can be made. Please be careful from now on, following the rules while editing and don't presume bad faith or throw false accusations on others. Hope this solves the needless controversy. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

NYT is a reliable source. And that you aren't able to read it is not my problem.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld I read the NYT articles, and read that there is nothing of sort about the "suspect saying he did it for ISIS" or "ISIS accepted responsibility" which you are claiming it states. Either you cannot understand what it is saying. If not, then that is misrepresentation of sources which is not allowed at all. Please read the sources yourself. Also please don't make claims about anything I didn't say, such as insinuating that I dubbed it as "unreliable". Obviosuly false accusations aren't permitted here. Also please know some "edit war" warnings aren't going to scare me off. I made one revert, but that too after assimilation with other edits and didn't revert since, not for edit-warring. If so, then you too were edit-warring, chsnges in a line doesn't mean it won't be a revert: . MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind, sympathizing with ISIS or killing its enemies doesn't automatically make a terrorist an Islamist, or even a devout Muslim. One can merely be against the sort of things ISIS' enemies do in the name of fighting it. Omar Mateen famously stated his opposition to the indiscriminate bombing in Syria and Iraq, and claimed simple vengeance for it. There are at least hints of a similar enemy-of-my-enemy alliance here. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:34, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Related/unconfirmed reports/incidents

Some user here seem to be intent on removing any information regarding this event that is not "confirmed". Specifically this seems to regard:

• Reports of the perpetrator's support of ISIS
• Reports of multiple arrests after police raids across several locations following the attack

There are no requirement on Misplaced Pages that information or reports have to be confirmed by state authorities for it to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages. If only state-confirmed information was allowed tons of information would have to be removed and this would be very problematic for obvious reasons. Inclusion is dependent on being credible and widely reported by reliable sources, of course as long as the nature of other reports are specified (and it may be mentioned that some reports are indeed "unconfirmed"). I can't see that there is any precedent for simply deleting all material that isn't state-authorised. User2534 (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There is obviously an effort to suppress information on this article. The same complaint you mention applies to the complaints or comments in:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2017_Stockholm_attack#Note_about_quoting_Swedish_government_agencies
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2017_Stockholm_attack#Removing_pertinent_and_related_information
• https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2017_Stockholm_attack#Vandalism

Incredible. Even to the point of suppressing NYT citations. XavierItzm (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems this user is being disruptive and seems to have a bias against classifying certain attacks as ISIS violence despite all of the evidence presented. I am quite concerned about his/her allegiance. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note about quoting Swedish government agencies

They fall under URL§9 and are non copyrighted, meaning you can quote the following freely:

• http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se
• https://www.msb.se/
• https://www.krisinformation.se/
• https://www.regeringen.se/

They all release information and statements in English. Take a look, so that I'm not the only one using them. For now they should be considered the best sources of information you can find, trumping any & all newspaper sources.
 P.S. URL§9 does not apply to images/photographs.
Carl Fredrik 12:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, "URL§9" refers to this part of Upphovsrättslagen. Another source that can be used for the same reason is https://polisen.se/ TompaDompa (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Government sources are not secondary sources, and are likely to be government propaganda. Use with care. XavierItzm (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything can be propaganda. *sigh* Dnm (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

there is no convicted perpetrator

I find it deeply unethical that there is named perpetrator this early and without anyone being convicted. Please take the name down, this attack is still under investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.58.197 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed to "suspected perpetrator". WWGB (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not enough, the Swedish Police have not released any official information about the identity of the suspect. Any information about his name is probably taken from internet forums like flashback. There should not be any names published. The information is not even sourced as there is no official channel that have confirmed the identity!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.58.197 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. I have consequently removed the name from the article. Keep in mind that the incorrect name that circulated online was briefly on this article. That is clearly unacceptable. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, I've removed this suggestive material. Even without naming the suspect on Misplaced Pages, he's still an easily identifiable living person and probably has a trial coming up. Associating him, even namelessly, with something Misplaced Pages declares is certainly murder, terrorism and criminal pisses on the spirit of a justice system that sometimes acquits defendants after hearing evidence. Sweden uses one of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Removing pertinent and related information

In a long series of edits TompbaDompa (talk · contribs) has removed highly pertinent information from the article, in part based on the fact that "it seems to be criticizing the United States". Yeah, it is, the article it is sourced to is less sparing than the summary here. So please do not remove information just because it does not suit you, that is not what WP:RS or WP:NPOV are about.

The same is true for the motivation section where the suspects association to ISIL is mentioned. This is done a very formal and neutral way, summarizing sources. There is no reason to remove any of this: Carl Fredrik 14:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticizing the United States in Misplaced Pages's voice is not WP:NPOV. There's a big difference between saying "The US was preoccupied with ABC" and saying "The US was accused of being preoccupied with ABC by XYZ". In this particular case, the major problem is that the phrasing Responses by the heads of state or foreign ministers of several European countries had been issued by the same evening, with the American public and officials more concerned with the initiation of American bombing of Syria, which began on the same day. interprets the thought processes of the Americans. A more factual (and therefore WP:NPOV) way of phrasing it might be "In the US, news about the initiation of American bombing of Syria, which began on the same day, made up the majority of news reports."

As for the associations with ISIL, the text is NPOV. Placing it under the heading of "Motivation" is not – it's conjecture. It is, for instance, possible to have associations with ISIL and be motivated by a different terrorist organization or ideology. I changed the headings to reflect this more accurately, and hope that'll be a satisfactory compromise. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done. It's difficult to get these types of articles right on the first try, because by their nature they start off as a heap of various (often contradictory) statements.

This doesn't mean we should get rid of everything that isn't neutral, we just have to word it properly and to replace okay sources with good sources. It's often better to have an okay source for something, then to replace it — because this keeps the really shitty sources from being inserted.

And as an aside to some of the edits, both Nyheter24 and Der Spiegel are high quality news outlets (especially DS) — so we should not be motivating removal based on them being low quality. Carl Fredrik 15:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 

While what you're saying is true in most cases, not all of it is true in this case. Per WP:BLP we should remove everything that isn't neutral. That's why I'm so eager to remove everything dubious from this particular article – the threshold for inclusion is way higher than it is for regular articles because this is subject to WP:BLP. TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that, but only that certain sections are. Not everything. Carl Fredrik 16:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Calling it an attack

Currently there are scant official sources calling it an attack. Please do not definite as such, especially in the lede — as it implies that there exists a target. Await further corroboration from other sources.

The fact is that some time during the 90's a similar event occurred in Sweden, which was not an attack of any sorts — simply a madman running over pedestrians (can not find a newspaper sources right now). We have to little information to attach a motive, hence: avoiding the label attack is the least we could do. Carl Fredrik 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article includes the word "attack". "...as it implies that there exists a target"; not necessarily.86.185.31.130 (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the incident CFCF is referring to is the one known as "vansinnesfärden i Gamla Stan" in 2003, in case anybody wants to look it up for themselves. TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes that is what I was referring to, even if I was a few years off. Carl Fredrik 15:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's not call it an "attack"... Let's call it bad driving that resulted in innocent people being mowed down like dogs. He killed the same number of people that were killed in London. Guess it's not a 'terror attack' since it didn't occur near a Parliament like it did in London. Keep your head in the sand... we all know what's left exposed up in the air when you do... Cllgbksr (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The London thing has no known motive, either, and what is known doesn't point to terrorism. It should be an example against this sort of panic, not for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

You're joking right?Cllgbksr (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Buddy had a long history of getting high, angry and stabby. Predated the War on Terror, ISIS and his own conversion to Islam. The Parliament proximity was enough for police to use counterterrorism tactics, but after the mass raids, arrests and seizures, nothing suggested the guy was particularly political or religious, linked to any group or angry about something specific that day.

This newer case went differently, but still no excuse to jump the gun for every case. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

DO NOT USE ATTACK IN LEDE

Ok, no need to shout! Why not? The word is used immediately beneath. Clearly it was an "attack". "Deed" sounds stupid. 86.185.31.130 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it does. "Incident", "event" or "collision" are better neutral choices. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

No, they are not neutral terms. Attack is what it is and attack is what we should call it. Using words like happening, incident etc. is making the terror attack seem harmless. --Rævhuld (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Two points here:

1. Incident, event or deed are far more neutral and do not imply a military target in the way attack does. Sweden is not involved in a war, and has not been since at least the 1820s.
2. This isn't about making terror seem harmless, but that by using intentionally militaristic language we are playing into the hands of those who perpetrate such acts of madness. We should have a neutral, non-militaristic language the article throughout in order to not make terror seem like the end of the world. It's horrible, but if we close our societies as a result of it we lose. Carl Fredrik 15:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Noting the dead and injured makes the harm clear. It doesn't get better or worse by rhetoric. We could mention the severed foot, if we want to scare people. That's verifiable. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:06, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Carl Fredrik 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the supposed connotations around the word "attack". The word is not linked specifically to a military use. It has a general usage meaning violence against a person or thing. Recently in London a painting was attacked in the National Gallery. I think in this article the word "attack" is entirely justified, including in the lead. I propose its use is reinstated. 86.185.31.130 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is the the implication of intent, I think. Accidents happen. A neutral word doesn't presume one did or didn't this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

"Attack" is used over 40 times in the article. To use "deed" and "act" in the lead makes no sense and reads poorly. 86.185.31.130 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems the majority here does not agree with you. Better to use some other word instead of implying things we do not know. It may well be called an attack in the future, but for now with unknown motive and little knowledge of the mental state of the individual — there is no need to use incendiary language. It would be wise to change some of the mentions of "attack" in the article body as well. Carl Fredrik 16:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Four people have commented on the issue here and it appears to be 2:2. I suggest no further removals of the word for what appear, at least to me, to be spurious reasons. 86.185.31.130 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

At a minimum title should read "2017 Stockholm Terror attack". Cllgbksr (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe some Misplaced Pages editors are demanding this not be called an attack. It was either an attack (he killed people by driving into them deliberately - and thus attacked them) or an accident (he killed people by driving into them by mistake). The police, the government, and all other sources say it was an attack – as Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources, that's what we call it. ~Asarlaí 22:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Pet dog

Should we mention the dog that died? To me it seems both distasteful and WP:UNDUE.
Please discuss, Carl Fredrik 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't oppose a single-line mention as it has been mentioned in notable reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a section about death and injury, it's not supposed to be tasty. If dogs are worth less than people, it has six words and goes at the end. Can't get any lighter with prominence than that, without completely omitting a sourced fact about a casualty. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

If you want to leave it out of the infobox, there's precedent for that. I didn't like it, but I accepted it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments aren't especially compelling. I love dogs, but it including the mention here is frankly disgusting. No one care about some dog. Carl Fredrik 17:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Then what the hell was its owner screaming about? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

No need to get angry Carl Fredrik. We report what reliable sources report. AusLondonder (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly don't put it in the infobox! But I don't object to a brief mention in the article. People have strong feelings about their pets, and reliable sources were interested. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC).

I think the consensus is no to the infobox yes to brief mention in article body. AusLondonder (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Point of order: consensus here about the infobox carries no weight whatsoever. The documentation for the template is clear: that parameter is not for dogs (or any other animal, for that matter). If you disagree with that, the discussion to change it must be held on the template's talk page and not on this one. TompaDompa (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It says fatalities not human fatalities. Either way the removal of the dog is speciesist.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith, and assume you're serious about it, and not just trolling, but dogs and other animals should not be listed as casualties alongside human beings. And yes, like the vast majority of all humans I'm a "speciesist" in the sense that I strongly believe that human lives are worth more than the lives of animals... - Tom | Thomas.W 19:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The exact wording used by the documentation for Template:Infobox terrorist attack is fatalities – Number of people killed during attack(s); optionally, you can split this into different types of people (e.g. 121 passengers, 21 crew or 3 soldiers, 1 civilian). TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think so, too. But given Apollo the Logician's (possibly non-ironic) enthusiasm, it may be time to crack open the Personhood can of worms (or can of people, if you prefer). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that was a joke. Worms are OK, but soil has more actual personality. Individual hive creatures (aside from the queen) also aren't worth much. There's no equating dogs with worms, but dogs and humans stand a chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Complex or giving the entire picture? Accurately portraying casualties and status

Should we give readers the information that is out there or not:

The victims were: two unnamed, but identified, Swedish nationals; a 41-year old British man, named Chris Bevington; and a 31-year-old Belgian woman.

or

They were two Swedes, a 41-year old British man named Chris Bevington and a 31-year-old Belgian woman.

Discuss, Carl Fredrik 17:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Polisen. "The four people killed have been identified". Polisen.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 2017-04-09.
2. CNBC (2017-04-09). "The Latest: Belgian killed in Stockholm was 31, from Halle". CNBC. Retrieved 2017-04-09.
3. CNBC (2017-04-09). "The Latest: Belgian killed in Stockholm was 31, from Halle". CNBC. Retrieved 2017-04-09.

Just a quick word - please see this (http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/semicolons_in_lists.htm) Here is one possible correct version - "The victims were two unnamed, but identified, Swedish nationals, a 41-year old British man named Chris Bevington and a 31-year-old Belgian woman." 86.185.31.130 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Both versions are correct, that's not the issue. Using the Oxford comma or semicolons isn't about being correct or not, it's about being precise. Carl Fredrik 17:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Our versions say the same thing, one just has a lot more punctuation. It's clunky to start and stop reading like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

The second version omits the fact that they have been identified. Also, I like punctuation… Carl Fredrik 17:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I dabble in it. Doesn't their identification go without saying if they're Swedes? Officials can't just tell by their hair. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, April 9, 2017 (UTC) 

The Elephant in the Room

The BBC tends to be firmly aligned with bourgeois liberal opinion and even they are now drawing attention to the chief suspect's connections to Islamic extremism, quoting the Stockholm police:

"He had sought residency in Sweden in 2014, but his application was rejected last year. He had expressed support for extremist organisations including the Islamic State group, police said."

Errr, so what is the reason we are not mentioning the suspect's adherence to extremely reactionary religious fundamentalism of an Islamic hue again? I think this reference is enough to at least mention it. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason would be WP:BLP. The threshold for inclusion for articles covered by WP:BLP (such as this one) is much higher than for articles not covered by it. TompaDompa (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Moreover your description of the BBC as "firmly aligned with bourgeois liberal opinion" does not give me confidence you are approaching this topic with the required WP:NPOV. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Instead of making throwaway ad hominem comments, lets address the source. The bourgeois liberalism of the BBC in the context is notable because it tends to handle these kind of atrocities with kids gloves, compared to most other news outlets. If they are willing to report it then we should probably be doing so to. The BBC reporting the position of the Stockholm police about the suspects support for reactionary Islamic movements should probably be OK to pass WP:BLP concerns, since we are not inventing it ourselves or stating an opinion, rather we should be mentioning that the Stockholm police have said it and the BBC have reported it. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the "bourgeois liberalism" of the BBC is not notable in this context because that is a highly contentious load of bullshit. AusLondonder (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, so you don't want to discuss the source, the content and relevance to the article, then? Why bother entering the discussion? Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I am discussing the content of what another editor has written. I am dismissing it as absurd. AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What a ridiculous response. Sigh.

Vandalism

An editor repeatedly deletes "The suspect was an asylum seeker." based on the argument that these are not government sources. XavierItzm (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Restored. The reasoning is highly ridiculous and suspiciously biased. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I said, XavierItzm. I removed the claim, pointing out that The Local had issued a correction with regards to asylum vs. residency permit (uppehållstillstånd). You added it back, stating that The New York Times is an authoritative source. I responded that neither is an authoritative source, but that the Swedish government agencies would be.

Per WP:BRD, you should've taken it to the talk page after I reverted your WP:BOLD edit. Per WP:BLP, dubious material relating to living people should be removed immediately without discussion, and doing so is not even subject to the usual WP:3RR restrictions. I didn't come up with these rules, but I do try to both follow and enforce them.

Cyrus the Penner, I suggest you take a look at WP:AGF and WP:DTR. TompaDompa (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm really astounded as to how you would not consider The New York Times, a mainstream American media source that has been used multiple, multiple, multiple, MULTIPLE times in a variety of Misplaced Pages articles about both American and international events and affairs, an authoritative source. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

An update has been issued by a local Swedish source. It appears possible there has been a misunderstanding/mistranslation in the English language media regarding the immigration status of this individual. My view is we should use treat the updated local Swedish source as authoritative on this matter until we know otherwise. It is very common for details to be unclear in the aftermath of such incidents. It does us no harm to be careful and only report what we know to be true rather than every bit of media speculation and rumour-mongering. AusLondonder (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Matti Huuhtanen, Jan M. Olsen. "Suspect's status as failed asylum-seeker stuns Stockholm". The Chicago Tribune. Associated Press. Retrieved 10 April 2017. an asylum-seeker from Uzbekistan allegedly killed four people in the city's deadliest extremist attack in years.
2. CHRISTINA ANDERSON. "Stockholm Suspect Was Denied Asylum and Told to Leave in '16". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 April 2017. The Uzbek man arrested in the terrorism rampage in central Stockholm last week was an asylum seeker whose application was rejected and who in December was given four weeks to leave the country, the Swedish police said on Sunday.

Suspect's name

The suspect's name is now widely discussed in the media (see ), including high-quality outlets such as Nyheter24 , but certain editors seem to be intent on removing any mention of it. Why? Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. TompaDompa (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, BLPCRIME requires that we cannot publish that "X committed the attack" until guilt is established. However, it is entirely appropriate to publish that "X has been arrested" or "X has been charged" which in no way suggests guilt or breaches BLPCRIME. Of course, the publication of a name requires the support of a reliable source. If you check many attack articles in Misplaced Pages, it is common to publish the name of the suspect prior to conviction. See, for example, 2017 Melbourne car attack, 2016 Brussels bombings, 2015 Nice stabbing attack. WWGB (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That being said, we've already named one suspect in error. We should at least wait until the name is confirmed by official sources, since the others report mere hearsay. TompaDompa (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Either way, both parties need to stop edit warring, or blocks may be imminent. El_C 23:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me just say thi for the record, Nyheter24 is not a quality outlet. However BBC News, The Independent etc. who has published the name, are. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Rahmat Akilov has been formally identified now , so I'm adding the name back to the article. If TompaDompa removes it again, a block would be deserved. Prioryman (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

prosecutors identified the driver of the truck If that's true, it should be fine. There should in that case be an official source to cite, which we definitely ought to do. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As stated here, the Swedish Prosecution Authority identified him on Monday afternoon in a press conference. To reiterate, it's an official statement reported by an ultra-high quality source. If you intend to remove it just because you'll only accept a press release by the SPA, that's not acceptable. You will earn a deserved block if you do so. Don't. Prioryman (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is what was pointed out above, at #Note about quoting Swedish government agencies – the official sources are the best ones. Citing a government agency is preferable to citing a newspaper reporting what a government agency has stated, because there's no game of Telephone. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's preferable if there is a published statement by a government agency which we can use in preference to a newspaper report. If there isn't (which often happens when it's in the context of a press conference), then we have to use the newspaper report, assuming that the newspaper in question is a high-quality source. We don't ignore high-quality media sources in the absence of official statements. Since Akilov has formally been named and is appearing in court in approximately 10 hours' time, it's an academic issue anyway. Prioryman (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

On a related subject, which spelling should we use for the first name? I've seen two different ones, with/without a "k". TompaDompa (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Most reliable sources agree on the "Rakhmat" spelling, which I have made uniform in the article. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

He is not a suspect anymore. He has admitted that he did it. So I think we can use his name now, especially considering that you can find his name in every newspaper outlet.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Is he still a suspect or the perpetrator?

According to BBC:"Rakhmat Akilov, 39 and from Uzbekistan, admitted carrying out the attack in court and was remanded in custody." So should we still consider him a suspect or just call him the perpetrator?--Rævhuld (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Put it this way, the police aren't looking for another possible perpetrator. Prioryman (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Until he pleads guilty or is convicted, still technically a suspect. A confession is simply strong evidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:56, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a confession is not enough for a conviction in case of a serious crime. Even though the evidence is strong, Misplaced Pages policy is that we should not, in Wikipedias voice, call him perpetrator. Per WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. " So naming him as the perpetrator is a WP:BLP violation which has to be removed immediately. Sjö (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

AP reports he "has pleaded guilty". Doesn't know when, though, which seems a bit odd. Maybe it's a mistranslation of "confession" or maybe Swedes don't need to plead during plea hearings. The reporter quotes a lawyer as saying buddy "is pleading guilty", which suggests to me it's a plan, not a done deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Let's get away from the "suspect"/"perpetrator" binary. I've retitled the section as "Attacker", following the example of 2017 Westminster attack. Whatever his legal status, there's no doubt at this point that he is in fact the person who carried out the attack. Prioryman (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Sweden articles
• High-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles