Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack

Suspect

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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)

Terror

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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, April 7, 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)

"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)

Norrmalm

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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

Use the word lorry

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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)

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)

Stockholm Waterfront

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Xenophobia

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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)

Islamic Terrorism

 Requesting immediate archiving...

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 ti 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)