Wikipedia

Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack/Archive 2

< Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 1Kwords in topic Victims' names
Archive 1 Archive 2

Request for comment on whether the dog should be mentioned among casualties/fatalities or not

Latest comment: 6 years ago37 comments23 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Gauging the rationale and comments by discussants from both the sides, minus hyperboles and in light of the prev. discussion--the dog that was killed in the attack shall not be mentioned among casualties/fatalities in the body of the article.Winged Blades Godric 08:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the dog that was killed in the attack be mentioned among casualties/fatalities in the body of the article?

I have chosen to start this RfC since the previous discussion about it (see Talk:2017 Stockholm attack/Archive 1#Pet dog) didn't lead to a clear consensus, and is "open to interpretation", as can be seen in the page history of the article, so to settle it once and for all (unless someone starts a new RfC at some later time...) please state your opinion below. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

  • Support A brief mention is reasonable, but not more than the six words in the article now. It has gathered enough significant mentions in prominent WP:RS to warrant inclusion. No mention in the infobox, per the template documentation and previous discussion. Sjö (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The current status of the article, including a brief mention, is clearly appropriate. Numerous reliable sources, such as the BBC and The Telegraph, The Irish Times (not to mention the tabloids, blogs and other sites) have devoted entire articles to the death of the dog. I cannot fathom how a single line in the article is objectionable. AusLondonder (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see my comment in the archive made the subject of argument.[1] Perhaps it's my fault for not being clearer. I support mentioning the dog briefly in the article text. People have strong feelings about pets, and reliable sources were interested. By contrast, adding the dog to the infobox, or adding the dog's name anywhere (for god's sake!) is just grotesque. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC).
  • I've changed my mind; I've no opinion at all. I don't like finding myself on the same side as arguments that it's "speciesist" to value human lives more highly. Yes, XavierItzm, I do want to be a speciesist. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC).
  • Support For a whole host of reasons, but principally for the reasons that animal deaths, often named if they were a pet, have been detailed in news and dispatches for centuries when there has been some kind of incident. Also, here in Europe, people really love their pets. scope_creep (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Hurt by the same action in the same time and space as the rest of the casualties. If its actual corpse in the proximity of humans didn't diminish or trivialize the event, a nearby mention in an article about it shouldn't either. Nor does counting minor injuries alongside serious ones equate severed feet with scrapes and palpitations. Even among dead humans, some are invariably missed more than others, for many reasons. Gauging which lives are "worth more" is beyond Wikipedia's responsibility or capability. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. One short sentence at the end of the casualties list does not seem excessive. (editor is a volunteer for Wikipedia:Feedback request service ) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support according to what we are supposed to be doing: including well sourced information, not engaging in censorship because of our personal feelings. If reliable sources include the dog, the dog is in. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

the BBC and The Telegraph, The Irish Times covered the fact that a dog died in the attack. I am very sympathetic to the view that mentioning the dog that was killed demeans/lessens the human victims. And to a lessor degree grants the same status to a dead dog. I do support mentioning the dog killed because radical Islamacists have antipathy towards dogs and consider them to be unclean. American Thinker has an article on this topic: Islam and dogs. So the dog killed is a part of underlying conflict of cultures that motivated this attack as far as the radical Islamic terrorism (I do realize that the majority of Muslims don't go around killing dogs).desmay (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong support. 1. It's on the WP:RS, including the BBC. 2. The dog is a victim of the terrorist. 3. It's absurd to claim that mentioning the dog's name, race, etc., is demeaning to the human victims. The dog is as much a victim as the humans. To claim otherwise is to be a speciesist. You don't want to be a speciesist, do you? XavierItzm (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. One short sentence at the end of the casualties section. Mainly because RS mention the animal's death, absolutely nothing to do with species-ism or such tosh. Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose for the reasons I stated in the revious discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose irrelevant The Banner talk 10:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It demeans and lessens the human victims to grant the same status to a dead dog. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't because it simply does not grant "the same status". One line compared to the rest of the article is not the same status. AusLondonder (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The dog is mentioned in the same section, in the same paragraph, as the human victims. That's equal status to me! WWGB (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The dog is not named and not in the infobox, so not given equal status. Sjö (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated previously. --NoGhost (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for given and obvious reasons.--Joobo (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm surprised anyone is arguing otherwise. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Its inclusion is frankly ridiculous. Prioryman (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Absolutely ludicrous. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 07:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Regrettable as it is that an animal died, it is preposterous to include animal casualties in an article and doing so will make this article a laughingstock and object of derision. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose — on grounds of questionable relevance and being WP:UNDUE. That is to say beyond the above comments. It is disgusting to include this piece of WP:TRIVIA, and it makes this article seem extraordinarily unprofessionally written. Carl Fredrik talk 15:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

summoned by bot. No strong feelings Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

We should preferably mention the dog in the context of other property loss, not in the context of victims. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an acceptable compromise to me as well. Carl Fredrik talk 13:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I am surprised to see so many Wikipedians opposing this based only on their personal opinions about propriety. What have I missed? Do we have a new policy that consensus based only on personal opinions can trumph normal WP policy to include info reported by many reliable sources? If so, maybe I should change my vote and henceforth just start pushing my own POV? Here, there and a bit of everywhere? Like I did years ago, before I knew better (?) as to how things are supposed to be done here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: "... normal WP policy to include info reported by many reliable sources"? There is no such policy, quite the opposite in fact, since being sourced isn't by and of itself reason enough to include anything (or to quote WP:Verifiability: ".. , while verifiability is required for including something, it is not a reason for inclusion"). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I meant frequency of publication in reliable sources, not the reliability per se. Seems to me we are not to execute censorship when a news item has been extensively covered in reliable sources. But I really don't seem to know anymore which way is in or out in these highly personalized issues where what we think and feel seems to be all important. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I've used WP:BOLD and made a text adjustment to make my point clearer. The extent of this discussion is far more ridiculous, to me, than the actual reporting of the dog's death. Let's work on something else now! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it isn't rediculous. What is rediculous is including it, and you can not be the sole arbiter of what is rediculous and what isn't. Carl Fredrik talk 08:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]I am the sole arbiter of my opinion, that's all, and given the amount of personal opinions that this whole discussion has been based on, I believe I too have the right to mine. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the change was an improvement, since it's now clearer that we reflect what was reported in reliable sources. SergeWoodzing might be thinking of WP:PROPORTION, that says we "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Which is another way of saying that we include what numerous reliable sources have written about. Sjö (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You forget to mention that we should also weigh sources against each other, and look at what kind of sources they are, which in this case are a blog (at bbc.com but still a blog...) showing a Facebook-picture and mentioning a campaign on Facebook, and passing mentions of a dog also being killed in the Telegraph. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about time of attack times as given in article

Latest comment: 6 years ago72 comments16 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result is no consensus. Some editors argued that the 24-hour clock should be used because the subject of the article is an event that occurred in a location that primarily uses the 24-hour clock. Other editors argued that the 12-hour clock should be used because the 24-hour clock would be confusing to readers who are unfamiliar with it.
Some say that because this is the English Wikipedia, articles should be written in a manner that is more widely understood by our readership, not necessarily the location in which the subject occurred, and some say that this primary English clock is the 12-hour one. Others have argued that the majority of English speakers do understand the 24-hour clock because they grew up in an area that regularly exposed them to the 24-hour clock and/or speak English as a second language. Some editors argued we should follow the lead of English-language reliable sources, and articles in The New York Times, the London Evening Standard, and CNN have used the 12-hour clock. Finally, some editors argued that more credit should be given to readers to comprehend the 24-hour clock even when they are unfamiliar with it, though others contend that some readers simply do not understand the 24-hour clock at all.
There's lots of discussion here, but unfortunately, I do not see any rough consensus behind any one position. (With the exception that there is clear opposition against including both 12-hour and 24-hour clocks as unnecessarily repetitive.) As a result of the lack of agreement here, the status quo ante will remain in the article, which I believe is the 24-hour clock. Some participants pointed out a lack of clarity in the relevant style guideline regarding this issue, so I recommend pursuing further discussion at a centralized place like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to solidify a general guideline as to when the 12-hour clock should be used and when the 24-hour clock should be used. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the time of the attack times be given in the 24-hour clock or the 12-hour clock or both? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

24-hour clock

That concerns how time is given to residents in Europe and is irrelevant to this discussion, which rather obviously concerns how time should be given in text in articles on English Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant in your opinion. Since Sweden uses 24-hour time, DMY and krona, the article should reflect that. We don't use 12-hour time, MDY and US$ everywhere just because "some" readers may better understand it. WWGB (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes irrelevant. On enWP we use what most readers of English will easily comprehend - and that clearly is 12-hour. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant in your opinion. Since Sweden uses 24-hour time, DMY and krona, the article should reflect that. We don't use 12-hour time, MDY and US$ everywhere just because "some" readers may better understand it. WWGB

Carl Fredrik talk 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Concur with SergeWoodzing. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support — per Date and time notation in Europe. This article is about an event that occured in Sweden, which uses 24-hour time, and all original sources use the 24-hour notation. Neither do we assume our readers are idiots who cannot comprehend that 14:00 is the same as 2:00 pm. It is far more likely that the issue will be with including 2pm than the other way round. This is not about the English language, but about the proper representation of date and time per WP:TIME. Carl Fredrik talk 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant link, as I have pointed out above. One of the cornerstones of work on enWP is that artricle text should be easily understandable by most readers. Your POV-pushing does not apply to that. The many people in North America, Britain and lots of other English-speaking countries, especially children, who are confused by the 24-hour clock are not idiots, no more that you would be, as a Swede, if you didn't know the difference between Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Mississippi and Massachusetts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Most English newspapers also want their readers to get it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm surprised there doesn't appear to be a really clear guideline for this situation. MOS:TIME (and to a lesser degree MOS:TIMEZONE) are relevant, but they don't clearly say when to use 12-hour vs. when to use 24-hour clocks. However, MOS:TIME does clearly contradict SergeWoodzing's contention that we should always use 12-hour clocks. Given the lack of a clear decision criteria, I lean in favor of the viewpoint that times should be reported in a manner consistent with local usage, even if that may be confusing to some of the English-speaking readership. Since Sweden uses a 24-hour clock, that is my preference in this case. Dragons flight (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - 24-hour time is the norm around the world. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support 24-hour -- the current version "The attack took place at about 14:53 local time (12:53 UTC)" is quite clear. I don't see how that's an issue. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
We're not only asking what's clear to you but worrying (a few of us) about what's the clearest to most of our readers. That should always be an issue in Wikipedia work. If the New York Times, for example, and British newspapers and international media like CNN use 12-hour for this story, there must be a good reason. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we should give more credit to the readers, who are not idiots :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There's that word "idiots" again! I've worked with thousands of young people in America and in Europe, in English, French, German, Spanish and the Scandinavian languages, for over 40 years. None of them have been "idiots". "3 pm" to someone not used to communicating in English is very often confusing and needs concentration and explanation, and we whose first language is English do right in teaching others how to handle that fact (fact) of the English language. Young people in Britain, Canada, the U. S. are often confused by "15 o'clock". Another fact. The way for Wikipedia to avoid such confusion is to use the most normal English possible, just like all those newspapers who want most of their readers to understand smoothly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that is a disservice to young people. The Mathematics curriculum in England teaches 24-hour time in year 3. Canada includes 24-hour time in Year 5. Students are confident in moving between "3 pm", "3 o'clock" and "1500 hours" (never "15 o'clock"). We live in a shrinking world that needs agility in understanding varying national contexts. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
And the way to do that is to help people realise and use what's normal in other languages, especially in the big world languages, like the big British and American newspapers did in this case, not by mixing things up - normal, abnormal, semi-normal, pseudo-normal, Brit-normal (from year 5), Swenglish-normal, USA-normal, POV-normal etc etc and causing even more confusion. The young people I've worked with and guided have all (all) been highly appreciative of that attitude in internationalizing their futures. Shall I e-mail you some of their letters? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given in my support for 12-hr fmt (given that we can only do one or the other). EEng 11:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

12-hour clock

Se my objection above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:TIME is no help, because all it says is "which format to use depends on context", which is intentionally vague. (I know -- I think I wrote it.) EEng 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what makes it a good argument: then we can rely fully on Date and time notation in Europe. Carl Fredrik talk 16:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I wrote it like that only because its predecessor was similarly vague. We never look to our own articles for style advice. EEng 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course we don't. However we can point to our articles as brief introductions to phenomena such as the Date and time notation in Europe which follows 24-hour time. If you don't take the word of that ariticle feel free to look at the sources, but it would be a waste of time for me to point them out here when we have a pretty decent article. Carl Fredrik talk 11:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It would indeed be a waste of time, but not for the reasons you think. EEng 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Then feel free to elaborate, unless the reason is stubbordness and unwillingness to compromise on your part. Carl Fredrik talk 06:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you actually need it spelled out: It's because this discussion is about what format readers of the English Wikipedia will best understand, not what various nations happen to use without regard to whether people living there are actually any significant part of our readership. EEng 01:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Every English speaker understands am/pm, but many find the 24-hr format awkward and confusing. As pointed out above, English-language newspapers use am/pm. There are specialized topic areas (military events, certain weather events) which have long used 24-hr format, but there are special reasons for those. EEng 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Factually incorrect: most readers and speakers use English as an L2 language and do not use am/pm at all. Carl Fredrik talk 19:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This should be fun. Show me where you got those statistics and I'll be happy to explain to you how you're misinterpreting them. EEng 21:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Quoth the Raven: ( ... well ... you know ...) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
See this for where 24/12 hour is used - [2]. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
We are not discussing where it's used per se but whether or not it should be used in English in Wikipedia articles, especially this one where newspapers reporting on the attack in English used it. Thanx anyway. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Just noting CFCF doesn't seem to be able to say where he gets his "most readers and speakers use English as an L2" statistic. EEng 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
CFCF, still waiting. EEng 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I am under no obligation to answer, especially when what you are questioning is a general statistic that will take you 1 minute to look up. Thank you LittleGun for your clarification. Carl Fredrik talk 11:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course you're under no obligation to answer, but not answering makes it look like you're just repeating some vague thing you heard somewhere but don't really understand. Luckily Little Gun, with your endoresement, has supplied the misinterpreted statistics for you. Often, spending just one minute on a complicated question leads you astray. See below. EEng 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Now all that remains is for you to explain how they are misinterpreted (which will be difficult, because they aren't) — and to get off your high horse and stop insulting and harassing everyone left-right-and-center. Carl Fredrik talk 06:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Already done. Please try to keep up. EEng 01:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not CFCF, but there is a source used in the Wikipedia article English language, and it states: "Of the approximately 1.5 billion people who speak English, less than 400 million use it as a first language. That means over 1 billion speak it as a secondary language". But you apparently know that statistics, so please explain instead of asking rhetorical questions.--LittleGun (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Five questions for you:
  1. Are you saying that the 12-hour clock should be abandoned when writing for them, to make it easier (or harder?) for them to travel in English-language countries where it is used almost exclusively by millions of people who live there?
  2. Would you think it was great if Swedish Wikipedians managed to push such an abandonment though on English Wikipedia permanently, once and for all, so that all times be given the way Swedes give them?
  3. Are you unmoved by the fact that NYT, CNN and British newspapers all used 12-hour for this occasion (as well as for the atrocities yesterday in Manchester)?
  4. As a Swede who very rarely contributes to English Wkipedia, pardon my asking, but did you find this through WP:CANVAS or how?
  5. Ya think it might be good to have some more neutral (non-Swedish) input in this discussion?
--SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I just want to know how 1 billion L2 readers and speakers are less than 400 million native readers and speakers. So EEng can have his fun.
But:
1) No, I do not really care. I am leaning to am/pm format, but this is not really "my" project. I am mostly, close to solemnly, a reader at enWP.
2) No, I think every contributor should be listened to in the same manner according to Wikipedia merits and sources etc, regardless of citizenship, native language, or main project etc. etc.
3) No, that is probably why I am leaning to 12 hour clock.
4) This article is mentioned on the corresponding articles talk page on svWP. I think that is how I first ended up on this talk page. I am not aware of any canvasing regarding this issue. However, this article has been used as an example of a much better article than the Swedish one, regardless of time-format.
5) No, I do not think "Swedish" users are less neutral as such.
--LittleGun (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Of the approximately 1.5 billion people who speak English, less than 400 million use it as a first language.
  • "First language" is too high a bar, since someone can be completely functional in a second language, including understanding am/pm.
  • "Speakers" are not "readers", and there's a huge difference.
  • Even if it said "readers", that's not "readers of the English Wikipedia", the vast majority of whom are in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc; that's true on a distinct-visitors-per-year basis, and overwhelmingly true on an article-visits basis.
The Simple English Wikipedia exists exactly for people who are not literate in English and its conventions. This has been indeed fun. EEng 13:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The Simple English Wikipedia should be treated as if it does not exist — it is a failed experiment with no readers. Time-notation is not about literacy in the sense you make it out to be — frankly this suggesting seems WP:POINTY. Carl Fredrik talk 06:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, so all you had to do was answer "even if there are more L2 speakers there are not more L2 speakers using English Wikipedia". Unsourced and assupmtion based, though. I do not understand the fun. But then again, I am illiterate.--LittleGun (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Aw, come on now! You're not illiterate. We know thaaaaaat. That said, I still don't understand why you commented here at all, nor how that came to be. I'll settle for just being confused about it, and then I'll stumble on as such into an anxiously uncertain future possibly riddled with more literate and odd, ethnically biased input from way up north. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why you need to understand my edit record or why I would need to explain the reasons I comment here. But, fine: I did not like the patronizing comment from EEng regarding L2 speakers here and the continued bullying here and here so I wanted to get that sorted out. I did not know you would react to that and ask 5 loaded questions that was completely unrelated to L2 speakers ratio.--LittleGun (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, since it is the most common written time format in English-speaking region. As it is required for readers of the article to understand English wording with more or less effort, it is not to much to ask they also know or figure out the am/pm format too.--LittleGun (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an event which occured outside the English-speaking world — I find it disingeneous to pidgeonhole in a date and time standard when it does not have anything to do with the language style.
WWGB puts it well:

Irrelevant in your opinion. Since Sweden uses 24-hour time, DMY and krona, the article should reflect that. We don't use 12-hour time, MDY and US$ everywhere just because "some" readers may better understand it.

Carl Fredrik talk 06:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I do think it is "language style", written language style, as used in english spoken areas. That is why I support. When you write in English about events in places English is not the first language, you still write in English. I do not know if MDY is as widespread in english spoken areas as am/pm is? If it is I would argue for that too. Luckily for me, as I have big trouble to figure that format out, dates are written out in full at Wikipedia, otherwise I would have had to learn or take the time as I always have to do when I stumble upon it. Currency is not language based, it is nation based. But we are not unused to adapt the currency to our language. In Sweden we used to say, and write, "finska mark" and "tysk mark" instead of "suomen markka" and "Deutsch Mark", in English they write "ruble" and in Swedish it is "rubel, so in that sense there is language style influence also in currency.--LittleGun (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Suppport 12-hour. It's not a question of whether its a Swedish thing or whatever. It's a question of, some Americans can't read 24 hour time (usually called "military time" in America) at all. I do understand that a lot of people don't believe this, and are of the mind "Don't be ridiculous. Everyone understands the 24 hour clock, just as everyone understands metric measurement or French (if you speak it slowly and loudly enough), even though the pretend not to". But it's true. People not believing it doesn't make it any less true.
So let's see. This page is averaging about 1,000 pageviews, but with a recent spike so 500 is more the true level probably. Well over half the Anglosphere is American, so even if you add in Swedes and ESL folks from outside the Anglosphere, probably half the pageviews are from America. Certainly 10% of Americans old enough to read the Wikipedia cannot read 24 hour time at all (I would guess a much higher percentage actually). Our readership probably skews toward people who've been to college and are more likely to be familiar with the subject, but OTOH it also includes middle-school students who haven't yet gotten to learning military time, so lets say its a wash. Half of 500 pageviews is 250, and 10% of that is 25. Why do we want to tell those people "We could tell you the time so you'd understand it, but we don't feel like it. Sucks to be you! Next time, be a European!" I don't see the upside. (And this is not ever considering that many other Americans can't read 24 hour time easily, so they have to count on their fingers or whatever to figure out the time in terms they can understand.) Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Suppport 12-hour This is clearer to most Eng speakers in most places and there simply isn't a "Swedish English" for us to use, if there were, we would! Pincrete (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Both

Reopened 25 May 2017

  • Support as compromise. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn as per WWGB --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as repetitive. Imagine if every mention of time in Wikipedia provided two styles. WWGB (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WWGB. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as repetitive (repeating, duplicating).Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Overkill. I think this specific section is a snow close. EEng 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • Use the same format as other times mentioned in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I have now adjusted the RfC accordingly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

How do RS report it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What is RS? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:RS ―Mandruss ☎ 14:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Good question. Here's an example. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

In the UK the bus timetables use 24 hour time. So yes most people in the UK (including the young) are aware of what 24 hour time is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • How does the guidance of WP:ENGVAR not cover this? Principles like attachment to a variety of English, first usage in the article, and being internally consistent within one article. Seems to work fine to me! --Jayron32 16:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate or not to link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics?

I am reversed on that linking with "The Language and linguistics category is for requests related to a Wikipedia article (or part of one) about language and linguistics, not for requests concerning the language on a page" - but I find nothing anywhere to support that view. Does anyone know where/how to find any support for such a thing to be purported? Seems to me that an RfC with such far-reacing consequences for many of our articles, when it somes to language and linguistics in regard to time, should be able to be commented on by editors with those subjects as a special interest. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

See descriptions of the categories at WP:Requests for comment. This is one of the "article topics" categories, and is also specifically mentioned in the text, because that is a common mistake. Anyone is able to comment on an RfC regardless of what categories it is in, but people who seek out RfCs in a certain category (by browsing the category page or being notified by LegoBot) should not have to see RfCs that don't fit the official description of the category. That's like spam. Wikipedia-wide style issues fit in the category Wikipedia Style and Naming, but such an RfC really should be general, not focused on a particular article. Consensus on things like time format for a particular article really don't have far-reaching consequences for other articles; Wikipedia doesn't use stare decisis. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus actually to have both time formats?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The result of the RfC above was status quo - seems to me what we arrived at was an equal amount for and against? Would anyone mind having "The attack took place at about 14:50 (2:50 pm) local time." - Also seems to me, namely, that "about" and "53" look a bit ridiculous together. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The closing admin wrote "there is clear opposition against including both 12-hour and 24-hour clocks as unnecessarily repetitive". WWGB (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yuck. EEng 16:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 Stockholm attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

False positive; that link wasn't dead. TompaDompa (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:GOODFAITH RM closed per WP:SNOW. There's no point in leaving this open – it would only increase the risk of the discussion turning ugly. (non-admin closure) TompaDompa (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


2017 Stockholm attack → 2017 Stockholm suspected terror attack – I believe WP:BLPCRIME protection for Rakhmat Akilov (who so far as I know, has only been charged with murder/terrorism, not convicted) should take priority over WP:COMMONNAME. This is a phrase used in the following neutrally-titled source:

  • "Four confirmed dead, one arrested over suspected terror attack". Sveriges Radio. Retrieved 7 April 2017.

The neutrality problem with calling this an 'attack' prior to a conviction is that establishing whether or not the truck collision was an attack or not is part of what the trial process determines. By presupposing it is an attack (like many in the MSM are obviously doing) we are declaring that whoever was driving the truck was attacking with it, and communicating that all you need to do is prove Akilov was driving the truck to prove he was attacking with it. However, in a trial process, you must do more than prove means (that he was driving) but also motive (that he intended to drive in an attacking way) which has not yet happened via a guilty verdict in the last 3 weeks since he was formally charged on January 30th. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose – We are not in the trial business. Just report it as the news does, as an attack. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The suggested title is overly pedantic, and especially given Akilov's confession and testimony there is good evidence to support "attack". Sjö (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as said above. He himself has said he did it to "kill Swedish people", and it is clear it was a terror attack. Adville (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NDESC, keep the current title per WP:UCRN. Sam Sailor 09:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quite clearly a deliberate attack, whatever the motivation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would oppose this move for reasons given, but the current name is inappropriate. The word "attack" is too vague & not a good translation of Swedish "attentat". Hundreds if not thousands of attacks, though all less serious, occurred in Stockholm in 2017. Since, to my knowledge, there is still no universally adopted name in English for this particular outrage, I suggest 2017 Stockholm truck onslaught to make the article name as specific at it should be, while leaving legal matters unaddressed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was clearly an attack. Lepricavark (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Support undiscussed move attempt

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Though it was not discussed, as it should have been, I whole-heartedly support the recent attempted move to Stockholm truck attack. The current name is too vague, since there were also several other non-related attacks in Stockholm in 2017, more-or-less noted in media. Needs a better name. Constructive suggestions? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've created a move request below. --Gateshead001 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. bd2412 T 18:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

2017 Stockholm attack → Stockholm truck attack – Vague name, 'attack' could mean anything, and surely other non-terror 'attacks' have occurred in Stockholm that year. 'Truck attack' makes the title much clearer about the topic and therefore supports the WP:RECOGNIZE policy. Also, there is no disambiguation for 'truck attack' in Stockholm thus no year would be necessary. Gateshead001 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There are other articles that don't use this format, like Toronto van attack, which in my opinion is a lot better than e.g. '2018 Toronto attack'. --Gateshead001 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as MayMay7, this is our MOS here. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as there were a number of other serious attacks in Stockholm in 2017, some of which drew media attention even if they were not terrorist-related. The name is too vague as it is now. Needs at least one more clarifying word. WP:COMMONNAME for this kind of thing can hardly be considered well-established, so what other articles are called is not relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposing a different title: Per SergeWoodzing the current title used is not named properly as it does not in fact talk about all attack(s) that happened in Stockholm in 2017 and per Gateshead001, the use of "attack" is pretty vague. However, the proposed title is also not good enough. Using the style suggested at WP:NCEVENTS of "when", "where" and "what", the title should be 2017 Stockholm truck attack. --Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That would be good. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I've normally been opposed to mentioning years, but it seems most here disagree. I'll go with the flow and support this name. It at least has the 'truck' in it, which is arguably much more important than my view on the year. --Gateshead001 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move since the current title complies with current praxis (I'm the one who reverted the undiscussed move to the proposed title and forced a formal request). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not to overly criticize the closer, but closing 27 minutes after the last vote was cast to get a 3v3 vote, just does not seem correct. --Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree - should be reopened. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Notifying: @BD2412: It should be reopened, particularly given the fact there is no clear favour for Not moving. --Gateshead001 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
A move requires consensus, which is substantially more than breaking a tie in favor of the move. The discussion ran for seven full days without getting anywhere close to such a resolution. There is no requirement that discussions yielding a clear absence of consensus after seven days be extended. The fact that we have a seven day period is already quite generous. bd2412 T 01:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your deciding that it takes "substantially more than breaking a tie in favor of the move" per WP:Closing instructions#Determining consensus. Also the fact that discussion was still happening on the day you closed (2 new people joined in and 2 previous editors commented again) shows that the discussion was still alive (WP:DEADLINE). I'm not saying the move would have happened, but I'm saying that you were too fast to close and closing right after a tie gives the wrong appearance --Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, I fully agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, whilst it's true that there's no "requirement that discussions yielding a clear absence of consensus after seven days be extended", it's also not illegal to request an extension. --Gateshead001 (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

2017 Stockholm attack → 2017 Stockholm truck attack – I agree with previous arguments for the move - an attack could be anything, so adding "truck" specifies it. Also puts it into consistency with 2016 Nice truck attack and 2016 Berlin truck attack Wq639 (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. I usually don't like move requests started so close to previous ones, but the last one should have been extended, as is the norm here, more so considering the discussion was still happening. --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Hardly the only attack in Stockholm in 2017 In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – The title should give the reader some reasonably clear idea of what is the topic of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per previous discussions & all opinions here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I do not see the need for it. But it seems ok.BabbaQ (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Sjö (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Adville (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name: 2017 Stockholm terrorist attack

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The article should be renamed the 2017 Stockholm terrorist attack since the perpetrator has been convicted of terrorism and Europol listed the attack as a terrorist attack. AadaamS (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NCE, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed. I don't see any particular reason why this should be an exception. This change would also remove "truck" from the title (which was fairly recently added), which better describes the "what" of the attack than "terrorist" would (the former is the method, whereas the latter is a description of motive – more of a "why" than a "what"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not, a truck has no agency. The tendency of Swedish media to at first describe it as a "truck accident" is not one that Wikipedia should copy as a truck is an inanimate object, it has no agency of its own. Why should this act be pinned on a humble truck? It is indeed a person that was jailed for this, not a vehicle. That's how the title is slightly absurd. Before the trial concluded, I think it's a good title but authorities have spoken and we are obliged to follow WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course a truck has no agency. Neither does a bomb, or a gun, or any other implement. But we usually don't use the word terrorist in titles, even for events that are widely described as terrorist attacks (per WP:NCE: September 11 attacks: A debate here concluded that there was no common name for the event. Scholars agree that the events were acts of terrorism, however adding the word "terrorist" to the title would have given it more words than necessary to identify the event.). However, we often describe the method of attack in the title, be it a shooting, a bombing, a car ramming attack, or a stabbing. TompaDompa (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Judicial authorities have spoken, since you bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF 9/11 attacks I point out that adhering to judicial sources is something that you take very seriously in other discussions. Why is this an exception? AadaamS (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think quoting the relevant guideline (WP:Naming conventions (events)) has anything to do with WP:OTHERSTUFF. The reason I take adhering to judicial sources seriously is because of the WP:BLPCRIME policy – we don't accuse living people of terrorist crimes if they aren't convicted thereof – and the WP:LABEL guideline – we don't call people terrorists without WP:INTEXT attribution. This is in no way an exception to either of those – the perpetrator was convicted of terrorist crimes and that's what we write in the article. But when it comes to the article's title, our WP:Naming conventions come into play, and WP:NCE says that the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed. I don't see any particular reason why this should be an exception to the general rule of thumb that the word "terrorist" is usually not needed. Is there any particular reason why the word "terrorist" is needed in this case, considering it usually isn't needed? TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
What comes down to "needed" or not is just the opinion of an anonymous Wikipedia editor. My argument is that we should name the article after what sourcs say - it is far better to put such decisions in the hands of available experts in the field, rather than anonymous editors. Even if they band together to create policies and guidelines, editors should not have the power to subvert WP:RS simply because they think it isn't "necessary". That's a discussion for a nother forum, however. I certainly don't want the power to ignore sources in my hands. Good luck with the source hunting. AadaamS (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Pardon not required

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made this change to the lead, because I'm fairly sure it's wrong. [3] The article itself simply says "If released". The source used in the lead is behind a paywall but the part I can read simply says "following his jail time". Also while OR, my impression is that Sweden, as with a number of European countries especially Nordic ones, does not have a sentence of life imprisonment where the only possible release is via pardon (or the sentence being overturned for some legal failing). Instead everyone may be theoretically apply to court for release after a time, even if it's incredibly unlikely in some cases. See e.g. Life imprisonment#Overview by jurisdiction and Life imprisonment in Sweden which suggests someone may first apply for a determinate sentence, of at least 18 years, followed by parole after serving 10 years. This of course may be a case where the person is never likely to be successful, but so is a pardon. So it makes no sense to specify pardon in the lead. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Ebba Åkerlund's grave

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

The consensus is against the inclusion of the material about Ebba Åkerlund's grave as not connected to the attack itself and thus undue weight.

Cunard (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit removed all contents in the article about Ebba Åkerlund's grave (she was a victim in the attack and her grave was vandalised multiple times). Edit: Should the material be restored? The edit directly references Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon which is neither a WP guideline nor policy, but a WP article. The subsequent discussion with arguments back and forth can be found in talk page section #Grave. The edit also references WP:VNOTSUFF, which is a policy. AadaamS (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What's the question? What would you like discussed here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • THE QUESTION: there are two editors in favour of including the material and three against. I would like a clearer consensus to beformed as to whether the material should be restored or remain excluded. AadaamS (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Have you found a reliable source which explicitly ties the grave vandalism to the girl's death in the terror attack? Without that, I see no reason to discuss this at all. Millions of graves have been vandalised all over the world for as long as we have history. No reason to single this one out because it just happens to be the grave of a terrorism victim. No reason to tie hundreds of our biographical articles to the manner in which they died as connected to their graves having benn vandalized, unless there is a definite connection between (1) the cause of death and - and - (2) the vancalism. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The attack is directly referenced in Swedish Television article. It is therefore SVT which connects the vandalism to the attack. If SVT had not mentioned the attack in their article, the "no connection" would hold water, but now source material makes the connection. Only anonymous editors claim there is "no connection" and "no relevance" in the face of a WP:RS source. We're not discussing millions of othe graves, we're discussing this one. Other graves are therefore WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also enWP is WP:NOTCENSORED. AadaamS (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who do not read Swedish & do not trust Google Translate, I would like to inform anyone interested here that there is nothing whatsoever in the SvT article that even in the slightest way infers that the vandalization of this grave (along with others near it) is relevant to the subject of this article. The SvT article mentions that the girl was killed in the terror attack and clearly does so only to illustrate the mother's grief, but not to speculate on the vandalization being related to the terror attack. The topic of this article is not Ebba Åkerlund or her mother, who are not TV stars or celebrities. To me, it's sensationalistic, disrespectful and sad to use the random vandalization of a grave to carry on and on with this item in this particular forum (talk page for an article about the 2017 Stockholm truck attack). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The given source is a public service broadcaster. The vandalism is also reported (paywalled) by Svenska Dagbladet, a broadsheet national newspaper. The accusation of sensationalism is therefore irrelevant. AadaamS (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
That article does not either link the grave vandalism to the subject of this article. Please stop this irrelevant, disrespectful, sensationlist campaign, created by you, not by SvT or SvD. I very rarely criticize another editor, but enough is enough. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Add information about vandalization of Ebba Åkerlund's grave.

  • Oppose inclusion. Not connected to the attack itself. Apparently her grave was one of several vandalised, so there is no close connection to the attack. The coverage of the vandalism in reliable sources is not much, compared to coverage of the attack itself, so including it is also WP:UNDUE. OTHERSTUFF and NOTCENSORED is not relevant to this discussion.Sjö (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • UNDUE is not violated, because the section on Casualties is not unduly large even with the added material. It could be rectified by adding more material about the victims. What do you think? AadaamS (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
No. The article is about the attack, not about the personal lives of the victims. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Sjö & my comments above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for being irrelevant to the subject matter. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there isn't a clear link to warrant inclusion. Within the bounds of enabling our operation, we should have such heart and tact as we can - no appreciable encyclopedic gain for inclusion and some negatives for doing so. Thus, don't include. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Stefka Bulgaria et. al. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per rationale given by editors above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victims' names

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

This edit removed victim names with the following edit summary: "We don't mention victims' names." There's no basis in policy for such a statement. I objected to it and restored a longstanding version with the names included.

This edit then once more removed victim names with the following edit summary: "What are you on about? WP:VICTIM deals with whether a person should be the subject of a separate article, which is not relevant here. Furthermore, WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus and the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. I agree with the removal."

Here's how I see it.

  1. WP:VICTIM says that "[a] person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Ebba Akerlund, one of the victims here, with her 1.5k hits from Google News, is a textbook example of such a person who ought to be incorporated into an existing article. The name appears in news articles dated 2017, 2018, 2019 and even 2020, which clearly indicates persistent relevance in the context of the 2017 truck attack and beyond. I find it odd that anyone would object to listing her name here.
  2. "The weakest form of consensus" is still stronger than no consensus, and it is a form of consensus, in this case a longstanding one. The "onus" is on whoever seeks to change a longstanding current consensus to get a new one, not the other way around.
  3. There is no policy-based argument to be made for the removal of victim names here. Therefore, some other argument is required. None was presented.
  4. Because there is no reason to exclude victim names from the article that I can see (other than the nebulous "we don't mention victim names" which can easily be refuted with an equally nebulous "yes, we do"), and a very good reason to retain at least one of them, I intend to restore the longstanding version of the article that included the names.

Are there any objections? 78.28.44.223 (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I object. That is in fact what I meant by "I agree with the removal". We never need any reason for omitting information, but we do need reasons for including it. Per WP:VNOTSUFF, While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. The names do not add improve the article, because they don't add anything to the readers' understanding of the topic. Writing, for instance, "a 31-year-old Belgian psychologist" is just as informative without the name. Not including that which does not improve the article is the essence of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. TompaDompa (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
For the third time, the consensus for inclusion which you speak of has existed for 3 years. It has been achieved through normal editing, which is how it's usually (and ideally) done. Your claim that the inclusion of the victims' names adds nothing to the readers' understanding of the topic is an opinion, one which hasn't been expressed in the past 3 years by any of the many editors who edited the article prior to March 2020 as far as I can see. Also, it begs the question of whether knowing the name of the perpetrator adds anything to the reader's understanding either, and the answer is that it doesn't have to (although it obviously does); it's enough that having it in aids searches. If you look at the headlines of some of the sources currently used in the article, you'll see that they contain some of the names: we have, for example, "Spotify Executive Chris Bevington Dies in Stockholm Attack," and "Föräldrarna till döda Ebba: ”Av hela vårt hjärta tackar vi det svenska folket" Both of these names (Ebba Akerlund and Chris Bevington) are likely search terms, the former one in particular because it was associated with another, much more high-profile incident, the Christchurch mosque shootings, and ought to be retained to avoid confusing the reader who might be reading our article looking specifically for mentions of these particular people. For that reason, I'm going to restore these two names to the article right now; as for the remainder, I suppose we can wait for further opinions and then decide. 78.28.44.223 (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Where you see consensus, I don't. What I see is information with news value—not encyclopedic value—being added during the period when this was in the news. I doubt people even assessed the encyclopedic merits of including the names (I can't recall doing so, and I edited this article fairly frequently back then). Nevertheless, two different editors (where I am one of them) have recently assessed that the article would be improved by removing the names. If there used to be a consensus, it has now been challenged. And no, the name of the perpetrator doesn't add anything to the article either. I suspect that this was meant as a "gotcha", but the fact that this argument also applies to the perpetrator is in fact a feature, not a bug. I find the arguments put forth for including the names (use in newspaper headlines and being likely search terms) weak. @Love of Corey: seeing as you were the one who initially removed the names, would you care to weigh in on this discussion? TompaDompa (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The current version of the article with only the two names (three if you include the perpetrator) that made (and in the case of Akerlund, continue to make) multiple news headlines looks like a reasonable compromise. If you feel very strongly about the need to delete everything, I suppose we could start an RfC. 78.28.44.223 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Imho the names can go into the article. The names of the victims are a matter of the public historical record. A Thousand Words (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
To turn this around: Which names are allowed? Perhaps the name of the city is "not of encyclopedic value", perhaps it's enought to say that something killed five people in 2017? A Thousand Words (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
1) Lots and lots of information is on the public record, but that does't make it suitable for inclusion in articles. 2) We are discussing including the names of the victims, and nobody suggested that we exclude the name of the city. Please don't use strawman arguments. Sjö (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, this edit summary is transparently WP:POINTy. TompaDompa (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Starting a general discussion on which names are allowed in the article to establish ground rules does not constitute POINTiness or strawman. It the other way around: arguing that of all the names in this article, only victims go unnamed is completely arbitrary. Whether or not something is encyclopedic is a matter of pure opinion and falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's true what Sjö writes: We are discussing including the names of the victims, and nobody suggested that we exclude the name of the city So tell me, why should only victims go unnamed? Why do only victims get this dismissive treatment? A Thousand Words (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The victims are WP:LOWPROFILE. TompaDompa (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Notability usually applies to whether an individual can have a standalone article, not article content. This debate gets nowhere, I propose it be resolved with an RfC. A Thousand Words (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Stockholm_truck_attack/Archive_2&oldid=1078432506"