Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 31 August 2015

Page created. Akld guy (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Political impact is incorrect....

Even assuming that any of the sources given actually credit the attacks for the change, the fact that one of the sources given is from February 2015 seems to discount that entirely. I don't think in ten days that the Sweden Democrat Party rose to sweeping prominence. This is POV-pushing not supported by fact, and the statement made is synthesis/WP:OR depending on how one reads it: it's synth if the rise is a long-term process, and OR if it really has nothing to do with this event. Either way, it's been removed. MSJapan (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(Responding to editor who is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me.) The sources, like the summaries of them that I added, support the Ikea murders as contributing to an ongoing increase and sharp uptick in support for anti-immigration political party. I reverted edit that was an obvious instance of WP:WIKIHOUNDING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No they do not. Problem number one is that you're using weasel words ("it is said"), so it's pretty clear, in fact, that it isn't said at all and is your opinion for the most part, and you're adding unrelated sources that mention Sweden to shore it up. Then when you get caught, you attack the editor rather than admit the mistake. You're the one pushing a POV here.

Dickson and Miller were both tagged by Gavleson as not supporting the claim . I didn't do that, and you removed the tags. Shapiro's article is from February 2015, so it has nothing to do with this incident in August 2015. The FT reference (Milne) is paywalled, so we shouldn't be using it. Your statement linking Malmo, etc. is actually a verbatim lift from the Fraser ref (so it's copyvio), who makes the connection only as his opinion, and he is the only one who does. That is the problem. You have cited a statement to five sources when it only appears in one, and even then, it's not a fact. You are trying to make a point by synthesizing information from sources, and you can't do that. Therefore, per policy, it's coming out again until such tome as you can factually cite it. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:PAYWALL (part of the WP:V policy page): "For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. so it is incorrect to say that "The FT reference (Milne) is paywalled, so we shouldn't be using it.". However use of a quote= parameter can help in evaluating paywalled sources. DES 18:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel:Ordinarily I would agree, but considering there's an overall sourcing issue with this content where nothing provided so far supports the claim as actual fact, I'm going to invoke "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources." The magnitude of the claim (and that claim being the only thing lifting this event out of NOTNEWS) is such that the source's veracity should not be predicated on "editor's recognizance" alone when that editor is the article creator. I firmly believe that any sources for this claim need to not only meet RS, but be publicly accessible and verifiable by anyone who reads the article.

I did put a paywall tag on the source previously, by the way. The article creator removed that tag, as well as the failed verification tags on the other sources, when he undid a revision. MSJapan (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about the phrasing being obvious WP:SYNTHESIS. It was not in any of the sources and also tendentious. It has absolutely failed verification, so keeping it unchanged is not an option. Seriously, this is not how you write an encyclopaedia, E.M.Gregory.

About the Sweden Democrats, there is simply no way of knowing that any upsurge in polls can be tied to this attack or not, and not one serious journalist or pollster has made such a claim, AFAIK. The debate about immigration in Sweden is ongoing, and the positive trend for Sweden Democrats has been going on for a long time now. However, I guess you can't rule out that the attack has caused people to support the party, so it may be relevant to mention the polls, but it should be carefully phrased to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:OR. Simply saying, "In late August 2015, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats scored record support in a number of polls" might be OK. Also, someone removed the mention about the perpetrator being a Christian, this is relevant because there was massive speculation about a possible religious motive and him being a Muslim. I may add some additional information about this at a later time... / Gavleson (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all your points, but I really would want a direct statement linking the polls to the event in order to use it - otherwise it's implication, even by mere inclusion in the article. However, it could bear looking into. Polls, however, are limited gauges of opinion, and in this case, timing is key. The polls wouldn't be relevant here if they were taken prior to the event, and I would question their reliability if they were taken just after - one simply couldn't rule out the polls being biased by timing. Just to be clear, I'd be similarly skeptical of a poll asking Americans if we should invade Iraq if it given on September 12, 2001, just as I am with the polls that say "Trump leads the pack" now - he does, but in actuality only by a few points because there are five candidates in the field splitting the vote. A source making a direct factual claim is still much better. MSJapan (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Bjorn Soder

Undo doesn't let me edit comment, apparently. So, we're not using "Facebook criticism" as a source for long-term impact. This is really stretching way too far to try to establish any sort of notability. Also, the Expressen source was a Google search, not a source. MSJapan (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous, E.M.Gregory. Is Björn Söder somehow more relevant than any other politician? He's not even a party leader. Where do we draw the line here, should we also mention the other 348 MP's? / Gavleson (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Lots of people commented on the murders, and the Björn Söder's statement is not especially noteworthy, IMO. No lasting effect, not much debate after the original replies.Sjö (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Sjö I hope that you will expand on that. The overwhelming chorus of condemnation of the attacks and affirmation of tolerance and generous immigration policies with which Swedes have responded to this and, for example, the gang murders in Malmö and elsewhere ought to be far more fully covered on Wokipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Political Fallout (section)

Perhaps I have a different perspective here, but the immediate aftermath of widely publicized incidents is the best time to write up sections on the political impact of these events. When a comment, a facebook post, a cell phone video is covered by major news sources as significant, it gains notability. Likewise, with this as with any crime, if it's just a local murder, it does not get a page. But if enough newspapers report on enough politicians, commentators, etc. using an incident to make (or attempt to make) political hay - it may well pass WP:GNG. Not because people were killed, but because of the manner in which their deaths are used to stoke or to redirect or, sometimes, to calm a political conversation. The article which I did not create, but, rather, happened on at AFD and sourced on the 2012 Paros (Greece) rape was such an event. It began as a rape, but became a political symbol in the issue that is shaking and reshaping Europe this year as nothing has done since 1989. Shooting of Kathryn Steinle is different. In the immediate aftermath, it looked as though it might resonate and have an ongoing impact on the conversation about illegal immigration, but it does not seem to me that it has proven all that memorable. The Steinle article should be kept even if the event fades from the public conversation, because it is a record of a political moment, and useful as Misplaced Pages articles on incidents that capture the imagination of a nation long enough to become part of the national conversation are, even if they later fade. I do not have a crystal ball with which to predict whether this double murder will be discussed in Sweden going forward. But I do see value in recording this widely reported event and the ways in which it has already become part of the Swedish conversation about immigrants and immigration, even if this impact fades as time passes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I also think that MSJapan ought to leave my edits in place and allow editors not involved in some sort of highly emotional vendetta against me be allowed to judge appropriateness. Perhaps, even, to add to a section on impact or political fallout without being preempted by deletion. Our present coverage (lack of coverage) of events related to the European migration crises is shamefully paltry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTNEWS. That is a policy, meaning it is a guiding principle of the encyclopedia. Your "different perspective" of what you think we should do is exactly what we do not do. Also, you "do not have a crystal ball"? Neither do we. "even if this impact fades as time passes" notability is not temporary. Should I continue to list the other policies within whose confines you are not editing properly? MSJapan (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The policy that applies is WP:NEWSEVENT: "2.Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." this event has been covered WP:INDEPTH & by WP:DIVERSE sources. It is too early to tell if it will have WP:PERSISTENCE beyond a month. What is not good form is your technique of removing well-sourced, pertinent material and then assert that an article fails because WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)