Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suspect

One media outlet described that the "driver is on the run". I have absolutely no idea whether this is correct or not, but if it is, it should be added to the main page possibly (once confirmed). 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you give a link here? Firework917 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Shots fired

I removed a sentence about shots fired; so far, this has not been confirmed, and Swedish media reporting this has been very clear it is hearsay in a chaotic situation. It can be added when confirmed, if it happened. /Julle (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

To illustrate, Swedish Radio just reported "... and the police now confirms shots have been fired at Fridhemsplan, but this might not have been related to the lorry attack" when the other reporter broke in and said "actually, we just got word that the police denies shots have been fired at Fridhemsplan", so this should probably not go into an encyclopedia right now. /Julle (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Fatalities

It seems like at least three persons are dead according to reasonably reliable media accounts, but there's a lot of confusion around this in Swedish media at the moment; I wouldn't put any specific number in the info box. /Julle (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a '+5' in the infobox without citation at the moment. Thoughts on replacing it with "at least 3"? Proaralyst (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Norrmalm

We might add a better map, zooming in on Norrmalm?--Rævhuld (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Use the word lorry

Dear community. This page is written in British English. So please use our words, instead of American -ish. It's lorry and not truck. Thank you.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Truck was the wording originally used in the page and should be retained per MOS:RETAIN. MOS:RETAIN states "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another". There are no MOS:TIES here because Sweden is not an English-speaking nation. AusLondonder (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

But according to this talk page, the article should be written in British English.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That template was added afterwards and I have now removed it as it violates MOS:RETAIN and MOS:TIES. AusLondonder (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It was added there before. And may I mention that Sweden is part of Europe? So we should use the European spelling and European words!--Rævhuld (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it was not there before this version of the page was created. I'm well aware that Sweden is part of Europe. But Europe has no universal language. There is no such thing as "European spelling" and "European words". France24 is using truck; as is Deutsche Welle. Euronews is using both truck and lorry but with a clear preference for truck AusLondonder (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Swedish government emergency authorities are using truck as is the City of Stockholm. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion. I merly added the template after looking at Sweden, and seeing it was tagged with UK-English. I did not know (or remember rather) of WP:RETAIN. My bad! (t) Josve05a (c) 20:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

nb edit conflictThis is a very silly argument, RETAIN says that the first variety used should stay, and that may be UK. However, in a similair situation on the Nice attack article, we decided to use 'truck', since this was a more universally understood term. UK sources frquently use it these days. Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The first variety used was truck anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Stockholm Waterfront

Hi TompaDompa. I thought part of the incident occurred right outside the complex? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ceannlann gorm: Not right outside it. It was a few blocks away, as can be seen on this map. TompaDompa (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Ok, thanks! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator

The perpetrator section is simply for those who are involved in carrying out the act act. I don't know how "Islamic State-inspired" is supposed to be someone. We never present a perpetrator section upon whom they are inspired, unless that group is directly involved they are not listed. A simple sympathy for ISIL doesn't justify adding "IS-inspired" to the perpetrator as it against the very definition and use of the section in the infobox. If this is a lone wolf simply inspired by them, then the assailant is the perpetrator. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not true, Khalid Masood was inspired by international terrorism. It was reported numerous times and is referenced in the Westminster article. It is referenced under "Motives" 2602:30A:C0D3:4FA0:45DE:9F0D:5CE2:767E (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing "motive" with "perpetrator". The thing being discussed here is "perpetrator" ie someone who committed or was responsible the attack, not "motive" ie the reason or intent behind it. I suggest you to read 2017 Westminster attack. There is no place where inspiration from a terrorist group is called a perpetrator. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Assailant

The first suspect who was reported to be a 39 year old Uzbekistani has been stated to be only in the vicinity and not behind the wheel. There isn't much information about the second one. Unless any definite information is released, it is better to avoid any premature blaming on them. I have therefore decided to remove them from assailants list of infobox to avoid any premature blaming. I thought about shifting the to suspected perpetrators but I suspect it will be create the same problem. If the community is okay with it, then it can be added to "Suspected perpetrators" for the meanwhile or it can be kept off completely form infobox temporarily until details are clear. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism"

As I believe, there's no proof that it's linked to Islamic terrorism, although it's likely. I don't think people should jump to conclusions. ~~Wh1ter0se (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Its pretty much certain it was Islamic extremists.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's likely, then why bother censoring facts? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then... Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Gotta enjoy censorship. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't report all facts; we only report verifiable facts. Unless reliable sources call it Islamic terrorism, neither do we. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Given all of the recent vehicle-ramming attacks in Europe, I think it's safe to say there's an alarming pattern here. You can't deny it. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...it doesn't mean zip for Wikipedia, as it is an encyclopedia and not a chrystal ball.

"This has happened:

• At 2.53pm the police were alerted about a lorry having rammed several people in a busy street in central Stockholm.
• At least 2 people are dead.
• No arrests have been made.
• There is no confirmation about the incident being a terrorist attack, the Swedish Security Service said.
• However, at a press conference Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said: "Everything indicates this is a terror attack."
• Large parts of central Stockholm are cordoned off.
• All metro services are cancelled.
• All trains passing Stockholm's Central Station have been cancelled.
• The parliament building (Riksdag) and the government headquarters Rosenbad are in lock-down."
  — Swedish public radio
  Vivo (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended content. ("Don't mention the war!") - The Bounder (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the religion of peace great? Smh. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Please focus on improving the article, Cyrus the Penner. This talk page is not a forum for your opinions on anything else. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC) In 2003 there was another ramming incident in central Stockholm. That time it was a mentally ill person. It could be that scenario, it could be terrorism. Let the newspapers be newspapers and encyclopedias encyclopedias. Vivo (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Thats one very rare occurance. The RSs are calling it terrorism. It is overwhelmingly likely to be islamic terorism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Patience is a virtue. FallingGravity 19:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC) This is the discussion on whether it is Islamist terrorism - not terrorism in general, which it has been identified as. ~~ Wh1ter0seWh1ter0se 21:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Isn't the religion of peace great? Smfh. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Cyrus the Penner We aren't here to talk about our views. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views on religion nor is a place to accuse others falsely that too of censorship. Something is only added on Wikipedia if reliable sources state so. Please stick to the point of the subject of this discussion. If you don't want to discuss about the the article and the topics of the discussion or want to accuse others, then you shouldn't be here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Xenophobia

It'd be nice if we don't immediately claim they're Tunisian next time, especially now there's reports of him originating from Uzbekistan. ~~Wh1ter0se (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Xenophobia". You mean we shouldn't use information because knowledge is xenophobic nowadays?--Rævhuld (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody claimed he was of tunisean origin. Anyway how is that xenophobic?Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

BOLO of the man wanted for questioning

I removed the part about him having dark skin, because I don't see how it is relevant. No article or official statement mentions his skin color, instead they focus on his clothing. My reason stated was: "No article or police statement has brought up the person's skin as a BOLO, however they mention his clothes: green jacket, white shoes and grey hoodie. Ex: http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/inrikes/881354-man-fri-fot-kannetecken".

This was however added back with the reasoning "it is clear from the picture.". Perhaps, but I still don't think it is relevant and seems to me to be more of a bias than sticking to what is being posted to quote Finnusertop under the topic of "Islamic Terrorism": "We don't report all facts; we only report verifiable facts. Unless reliable sources call it Islamic terrorism, neither do we." (the same should apply to this, no?)

I propose that the part about the skin color be removed, but I won't remove it again since it was re-added already. 155.4.131.112 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A description of the culprit is relevant for the article. This is an encyclopedia and not a safe space.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

And the description used by media is of his clothes, not his skin color. 155.4.131.112 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Tabloid as a reputable source?

This article uses the "Aftonbladet" tabloid as a source for claims that the perpetrator was Uzbek and inspired by ISIS. However, I don't believe that this falls under WP:RELIABLE, seeing as the U.K. Daily Mail tabloid was recently explicitly denoted by Wikipedia as and unreliable source so why would this be different? Can't we wait for a more reputable source to make these claims before including them in a encyclopedic article? I don't want to remove anything without consensus, though. Maybe, I'm wrong. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As I understand the consensus on the Swedish Wikipedia, Aftonbladet is not always reliable. It can be used for uncontroversial statements of facts, or for information on what someone they interviewed has said. But in a high-profile crime like this I would never use it as a source for something that's only attributed to something like "according to information we received" or "sources say". Sjö (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Err on the side of caution with WP:BLP in mind. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Aftonbladet is not comparable to Daily Mail. That is misinformation.--94.234.170.69 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said it was as unreliable as the Daily Mail, but it's not exactly the most reliable either. Sjö (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Aftonbladet is as good as any other mass media source. You just have to be careful. Sadly, we can't get peer-reviewed articles on everything. If you want sources that are better than mass media, you could use the Swedish police as source.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. A tabloid is a tabloid, gossipy and sensational in mature without considering whether story is true or not. That is why tabloids are avoided here. In addition, the Swedish police have already made information available and there are other sources, so there is no need to use it. Regardless, we should err on the side of caution in such a circumstance. I think it can be use however if other reliable sources use it though, with clear representation that the report is from Aftonbladet.

MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Terror (and murder)

When police say they're treating a brand new case as terrorism, that means they'll use counterterrorism tactics to aid in their investigation into whether or not the suspect is a terrorist. It does not mean he definitely was, or even probably was. Since this suspect's not only completely unknown, motives and all, but apparently alive, he'll also have a murder trial (if police even press charges). If he's convicted of murder, this will be a murder. If he's convicted of terrorism (or terror stuff), this will be terrorism.

It's just dumb to jump the gun when the driver dies, but when he doesn't, it's libelous. We have rules about that sort of thing, so go easy on the murder and terrorism categories (by completely avoiding them). And remember that "terror" and "terrorism" are different words, just like all -ism words are. Encyclopedias aren't meant to be sensational and as fast as possible, but newspapers are. Don't play their game.

For my own sanity, I'm going to step away from this article (before the Reactions section shows up), but this guy was wondering why I removed dumb libel, so I thought I'd explain. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It is clearly a terror a attack the Swedish PM has called it one.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He said that there's much that suggests that it is one, but it remains to be officially confirmed AFAIK. Sjö (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure an article is forthcoming, that will contain a written confession from the Jihadist that ran over the Infidels with the truck - confessing he is a Muslim terrorist and it was a terrorist attack. (rolling of eyes) ... Cllgbksr (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Upload the image of the suspect

There are two images from the Swedish police here. Should we integrate it into the article?--Rævhuld (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not until the person is found guilty in court. Vivo (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Title of article needs changed

Should read 2017 Stockholm Terror attack Cllgbksr (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Why?Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately running over pedestrians in a crowded shopping area and killing four, Sweden PM said “This indicates that it is an act of terror", suspect being held for terror related crimes...you know.. the little stuff...? Or would you rather classify it as "driver inattention"?..maybe he was texting and not paying attention as he ran them over...maybe the accelerator was stuck...file it under "mechanical failure"?... Cllgbksr (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The article states it was terrorism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Stockholm terrorist attack? If it does need changing (and I'm not convinced at the moment that it does) that would seem to be a reasonable one. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to change. The present title is precise enough and not too precise WP:PRECISE – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I see, it's ok to use terrorist in the article - just don't put it on the headline. Makes a lot of sense. (shaking of head)... Ideologues see the world as they want it to be - realists see it for what it is. Cllgbksr (talk) 22:29, 8 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 Wikipedia, he's still an easily identifiable living person and probably has a trial coming up. Associating him, even namelessly, with something Wikipedia 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, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia? 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: [1]. 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, 11 April 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: [2]Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticizing the United States in Wikipedia'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 ^talk 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 ^talk 16:37, 9 April 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:

• [3]

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 ^talk 17:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

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 ^talk 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, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The second version omits the fact that they have been identified. Also, I like punctuation… Carl Fredrik ^talk 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, 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 ^talk 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, 9 April 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, 9 April 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 ^talk 17:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Then what the hell was its owner screaming about? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 9 April 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 ^talk 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, 9 April 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, 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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, 9 April 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, 11 April 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, 9 April 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 ^talk 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, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Carl Fredrik ^talk 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, 9 April 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, that's what we call it. ~Asarlaí 22:58, 9 April 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)

Off-topic

No shortage of "bourgeois liberalism" on WP... Cllgbksr (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Conservapedia is this way. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC) So, not fellow traveling with reactionary theocrats is somehow "conservative"? LOL, Anglos live in a very, very strange world. In any case, the reason the British bourgeois class, including the BBC is usually so soft on this reactionary ideology is specifically to appease the medieval Gulf monarchies whom they rely on for energy and to sells arms to, but, I digress. Back to the topic at hand, ladies? Any opinion on what the Stockholm police had to say, AusLondoner? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Knowing that Wikipedia is built on consensus, how can you possibly think that such an attitude will get you anywhere? Pro tip for next time: avoid saying things like "The BBC tends to be firmly aligned with bourgeois liberal opinion", I'm pretty sure you know it makes you sound like a nutter, especially since it's not even an ideologically cohesive slur. It's like calling someone: "you darned blasphemous pious communist capitalist". Carl Fredrik talk 22:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)  What rubbish. I'm from Manchester originally, and even as a teen I saw the socialist/liberal bent of the Beeb. That doesn't mean that factual info from their print or radio programs shouldn't be utilized. But take the blinders off.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Ok, so we'll take your word from it because you decided the BBC was biased as a teen living in Manchester. Wtf? Given both the radical left and radical right accuse the BBC of "bias" I'd say they're doing a pretty good job. How about you look at some hard evidence rather than regurgitating whatever trash you've been fed by crappy right-wing tabloids. To accuse the BBC of being "socialist" is almost beyond parody. I really worry sometimes about the direction this project is heading in when people sprout such blatant disinformation. AusLondonder (talk) 00:49, 10 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 Wikipedia 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

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 ^talk 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)

Suspect's name

The suspect's name is now widely discussed in the media (see [4]), including high-quality outlets such as Nyheter24 [5], 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 Wikipedia, 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 [6], 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, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a confession is not enough for a conviction in case of a serious crime. Even though the evidence is strong, Wikipedia 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, 11 April 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)

Wait for a conviction. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Maps

The location map in the infobox has a red dot marking Åhlens department store, but actually, because of the scale, covering most of Stockholm. I don't find that particularly helpful; anybody can click on the Stockholm link if they are uncertain where the city is located.

The other map, showing the route of the hijacked truck is more illustrative of the locale and of what actually happened. The only problem is that it appears to be inconsistent with what is known now. The terrorist did not drive Adolf Fredriks kyrkogata directly onto Drottninggatan but made a couple of turns first, as illustrated in these newspaper articles:

• [7]
• [8]

The second one shows the route as seen from the north (i.e. the north is to the bottom of the aerial image). As seen in Google street view here, Adolf Fredriks kyrkogata is a one-way street and the truck must have been parked with its back towards Drottninggatan. While RA could have backed onto Drottninggatan, or tried to turn the truck in the narrow space available, driving forwards must have seemed the easier option.

@AlexTref871: - is there a chance you could edit the map accordingly? --Hegvald (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hegvald, Hello. I'll try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTref871 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Done. File:2017 Stockholm attack.png --AlexTref871 (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Excellent! --Hegvald (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I replaced the existing source in the image caption with the two above to make it match. TompaDompa (talk) 15:43, 13 April 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 Wikipedia that information or reports have to be confirmed by state authorities for it to be mentioned on Wikipedia. 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/wiki/Talk:2017_Stockholm_attack#Note_about_quoting_Swedish_government_agencies
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2017_Stockholm_attack#Removing_pertinent_and_related_information
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Would the both of you -- XavierItzm (talk · contribs) and Cyrus the Penner (talk · contribs) -- mind actually naming the "user" whom you are attacking here, or are you too cowardly to do that? --Hegvald (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this. I read the first comment as implying ISIS allegiance, and the second as a personal attack, or at least close to it. Sjö (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I am uncollapsing it, Sjö (talk · contribs). You do not seem to realize how poisonous it is for any discussion when participants imply unspecified biases or conspiratorial attempts to "suppress" information (and expect to go go scot-free from accusations of personal attack by not naming the user(s) they are attacking). This began (in this section) with the comments of User2534 (talk · contribs) and XavierItzm (talk · contribs) that you left unhatted, giving the impression that they were just fine in your view. Or possibly just showing that you did not bother reading the whole discussion, in which case you have no business playing admin here. --Hegvald (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear for my part, the comment I made some days ago was a general comment regarding earlier versions of the article when there were specific issues with the mentioned information being removed. I have no major issues with how everything has resolved at this point, as there is now (obviously) more or less consensus that these things should be mentioned. User2534 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that the content now more or less reflects the WP:RS, but it took a lot of effort due to the efforts of the vandals who kept on deleting sources such as the NYT. In the meantime, it is interesting to see the insults by Hegvald. XavierItzm (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So, XavierItzm (talk · contribs), you are still insistent in questioning the motifs of other users (calling them "vandals"). Based on this I assume the user intended is TompaDompa (talk · contribs). As far as I tell from the now-archived sections linked above, he was only a bit less enthusiastic about adding information that was at that time as yet uncertain. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take in a case such as this one. There is no basis here for calling him a "vandal" or implying that he sympathizes with ISIS -- if that is a correct understanding of Cyrus the Penner (talk · contribs)'s "I am quite concerned about his/her allegiance." -- and doing so is completely beyond the pale of what should be accepted in a discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. If you think I am attacking or insulting you for calling you out on this behaviour, you need to look yourselves in a mirror. --Hegvald (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm well aware that I'm the one they're referring to. Even if I had been unable to tell from this talk page, it's explicit here. TompaDompa (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Clear example of insult: "are you too cowardly" (written by Hegvald on 09:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)). Quite uncivil, I'd say. XavierItzm (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The event is presented in Wikipedia main news page as follows: "A stolen truck is driven through crowds and into a department store in downtown Stockholm, killing 4 people and injuring 15 others." From reading this title, the truck is responsible of the event. Usage of the passive form is to me a way to circumvent the identity of the perpetuator and the cause of the event. From the information available at this time, this title should be entirely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.228.35.30 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Posting from Israel, you appear to be struggling with the English language. It states the truck "is driven", not that the truck drove itself. By the way, a "perpetuator" is someone who perpetuates something. I think you mean "perpetrator". WWGB (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, only administrators can edit the WP:In the news template. If you want to bring it to their attention, WP:ERRORS is the place to do so, not here. TompaDompa (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

opening line

The opening line should be CLEAR that this is an Islamic Fundamentalist driven terror attach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.2 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

But it isn't clear. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The people working inside where the truck hit the department store

The truck hit the building crashing through a wall of the Make-Up Store where 4-5 cosmetics salespeople and cosmetologists were on duty. I find it very strange that media has ignored that important part of the drama 100%. Through personal connections I can inform anyone interested here, that no one was injured but all were extremely shocked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of non-fatal injuries

The number of non-fatal injuries is currently given as 15 in the infobox. I see two problems with this.

The first problem is that we don't know the number of people injured, only the number of people treated at hospitals for their injuries. This could easily be fixed by phrasing it as "[number] requiring hospital treatment" or something to that effect.

The second, bigger problem is that the number seems to be inaccurate. On the day of the attack, the Stockholm County Council issued a press release stating that one person had died in hospital and 15 were being treated at hospitals. It's important to note that the first person to die in hospital is not included among the 15 who were being treated at hospitals (which means that 16 people were hospitalised in total). Since then, a second person has died in hospital. That would bring the number of non-fatal injuries requiring hospitalization down to 14.

Full disclosure: This edit summary refers to the following quote: Fifteen people were hospitalised and three killed in the attack. The woman is the second to have died of injuries in hospital. Before I found the press release from the day of the attack, I was under the impression that this quote meant that fifteen people had been hospitalised, of whom two died in hospital and thirteen were discharged. It now seems the correct numbers are sixteen, two, and fourteen, respectively (see above).

Another thing to take into consideration is whether what I've written above constitutes WP:Original Research. There are two components to this:

• Whether it passes WP:CALC, which says: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
• Whether it passes WP:SYNTH, which says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

I personally think that the result of the calculation (the calculation itself basically being 15-1=14) is indeed "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources", but by any strict interpretation of WP:SYNTH this is editorial synthesis, and thus original research.

I therefore propose that we remove the figure for non-fatal injuries from the infobox altogether (and instead add a comment stating that the parameter is intentionally left blank), but keep the following text (currently under the heading "Casualties"): In a press release on the day of the attack, the Stockholm County Council said that 15 people were being treated at hospitals, nine for serious injuries.

Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as there have been no responses, I went ahead and made the change. TompaDompa (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I put the estimated amount of injuries back. The sources mentions around 15 injured, so it could be added to the infobox as circa 15 injured. JBergsma1 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Why use military time

I believe it is unnecessarily confusing to many readers in English-speaking countries to use military time for the time of the attack (14:53) rather than normal English terminonolgy (2:53 PM), and I see so reason to use it at all. Will revert again unless someone explains the advantage of using military time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:TIME both forms are acceptable, and we should avoid switching between acceptable forms unless there is a good reason. An analogy is MOS:ENGVAR, and following from that analogy there's a good reason to keep the 24-hour clock time, since that's the common way to tell time in Sweden (A.M./P.M. are unusual in Swedish). Also, 24-hour clock times are perfectly understandable for English speakers. Sjö (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with your interpretations of MOS:TIME and MOS:ENGVAR in this case, and I find strong support for my view in googling the question. Military time (there aka the 24-hour clock) is not normally used in Britain either, except for some transportation time schedules and formal documents. What's the least confusing should be used here, and it is clear to me that 2:53 PM by far is the least confusing to readers of English who have no reason to be familiar with the way Swedes keep time. Will the 3 of you Swedes also be introducing half seven in English text for 6:30 PM? Perhaps an RfC could settle this once and for all and provide a valuable precedent? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Quoting MOS:TIME directly: Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used [...]. By analogy with its subheading MOS:TIMEZONE, which states Give dates and times appropriate to the time zone where an event took place. For example, the date of the attack on Pearl Harbor should be December 7, 1941 (Hawaii time/​date)., I interpret this to mean that we should use the 12-hour clock for events in contexts where it would be used and the 24-hour clock for events in contexts where it would be used. How do you interpret it, SergeWoodzing? TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your interpretation is wrong. Is says nothing about giving the time in the format used locally where the event took place. It says the time (when the event occurred) should be give as per the location of the event. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't claim it said that. I offered my interpretation of what the word "context" means in that sentence, and the reason I interpret it that way. Furthermore, you didn't answer my question – how do you interpret the word "context" in the sentence Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used [...], SergeWoodzing? TompaDompa (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The comparison with "half seven" is odd to me, since MOS:TIME also says The numerical elements of times-of-day are figures (12:45 p.m.) rather than words (twelve forty-five p.m.) though conventional terms such as noon and midnight are acceptable (taking care, with the latter, to avoid possible date ambiguity in constructions such as midnight on July 17)., which rules that phrasing out entirely.

If you wish to start an RfC, that is your prerogative. Personally, I think it would be overkill. If you want it to set a precedent, I suggest you start it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and make a concrete suggestion as to how the guideline should be amended. I would however advise you that the 24-hour clock used to be the only one allowed, so reaching WP:CONSENSUS to start recommending the 12-hour clock instead seems highly unlikely. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"the 24-hour clock used to be the only one allowed" - whaaat? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

See this version of the Manual of Style from 2005. It says Times should be written in the 24-hour clock (HH:MM or HH:MM:SS). TompaDompa (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanx. Removed for good reasons. English Wikipedia should always use text that is as clear as possible to the millions of people in English-speaking countries. Military time isn't, as proven by all the Americans, Brits, Australians, Canadians, Nigerians, New Zealanders etc etc etc who have missed things when travelling in Europe because their Engish tourism texts didn't know to put the times in a form a they'd understand. Europeans travelling in their countries often have the same problems, due to this attitude. Can we try to be as nice to people as possible? Help them understand, not misunderstand? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This guideline is very clear: "Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not an issue about vocabulary… Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to respect the discussion here, where several neutral (non-Swedish) editors also have been very active, but you immediately reverted anyway. That's called WP:EDITWAR, bordering on article ownership. Please stop reverting with construed and irrelevant comments here or in your edit summaries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any consensus, anywhere, to use both 12-hour and 24-hour time in the same sentence. WWGB (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That was my attempt (foolish?) at a compromise. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Excluded in media lists

I have noticed how this particular attack is not included in lists published by major media of islamic extremist attacks during recent years. Has anyone seen any reliable source that addresses that exclusion and whatever reason there may be for it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any such lists from major media, but that is surprising. It is not listed here either: [9].

I do not have any explicit sources, but even though a lot of media reports about radicalisation[10] and he himself reportedly claims ISSL ordered him[11], this has been questioned:[12], [13], [14].

Also, ISSL have not claimed resposibility, something they usually do and have done för both worse and more minor events: [15], [16]. I do not know if ISSL have been known to claim responsibility for deeds they have not done, or if several islamic organisations have been known to claim same deeds.

Maybe major media awaits more evidence or even a conviction, which is the surprising part. It is less surprising Wikipedia is careful.--LittleGun (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)