Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gavleson (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 31 August 2015 (→Bjorn Soder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)