Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack

Grave

The grave of one of the victims being vandalized seems very tangential to the attack itself. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's part of the publicly recorded aftermath of the attack. It's the aftermath, therefore relevant and verified by WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with AadaamS. Her death was something a lot of Swedes felt for. It is her they discuss in newspapers, although others died too. "the death of the innocent child" that shows the cruelity of terrorism. When her grave is vandalized it tears up the pain again after this attack. Therefor it is relevant. Adville (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It is—at the very least—misplaced. It doesn't belong in the Attack section, because it didn't happen in conjunction with the attack. It's part of the aftermath. TompaDompa (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the section could be moved. AadaamS (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection to the attack. 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 there's also the question of WP:DUE. Sjö (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude If a reliable source specifically states that her grave was vandalized because her name is known to the vandal as a victim of the truck attack, that would be worth considering. Is there any such source? I think not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Against inclusion. There is no direct links with the attack itself and for the large public is irrelevant information. Eventhough the event itslef is very and very sad. But let's leave it for the editorials and internal clarifications. If that would be done on purpose, this would be different story. --IuliusRRR (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Targeted?

TompaDompa per this edit, something being "targeted" is not a requirement for including the material - please show me the enWP policy or guideline. Also, comparing this (the vandalism attack went to court) to pop culture trivia about Kevin Bacon is not a relevant comparison - are you really suggesting that the vandalism of a grave of a victim of terrorism is pop culture trivia and should be treated as such? It basically comes down to you opposing the material and it will be down to other editors to chip in to create consensus. Per SVT source: Ebba Åkerlund, 11, var ett av offren för terrorattacken på Drottninggatan. My position is that the information is WP:V verified by WP:RS and therefore belongs in the article. Comparing to pop culture is a both a weak and irrelevant argument not based in enWP policy or guidelines. AadaamS (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand. My point is that this is not an article about Ebba Åkerlund, but an article about the attack in which she was killed. The relevance of the vandalism to the attack is clearly higher if her grave was vandalised specifically because she died in the attack. It is not necessarily the case that because there is a connection between her and the attack and there is a connection between the vandalism and her, there is a connection between the vandalism and the attack. There is an extra step separating the vandalism from the attack (hence the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon comparison), and the relevancy of the former to the latter has not been established. The relevant guideline here is WP:OFFTOPIC – the passage was going off on a tangent by describing something not directly related to the attack.

You seem to be under the impression that all WP:Verifiable information belongs on Wikipedia. This is not the case – WP:Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We are under no obligation to add information to Wikipedia, let alone a specific article, simply because the information is factual (or even verifiable). Indeed, WP:NOTEVERYTHING clearly states Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. Verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being included. The information also needs to improve the article it is included in. TompaDompa (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no "extra degree of separation", the connection to the attack is made directly in the source if the attack was never mentioned in the source you would have an argument. Why would you claim there's separation when the source makes a direct connection? Sources trump opinions by editors. As for your comment The information also needs to improve the article that's just a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - it is simply your opinion the information does not improve the article, but there's a source on my side of the argument. AadaamS (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Where in the source is a connection made between the attack and the vandalism? All I see is a connection between the girl and the attack, and a separate connection between the girl and the vandalism. That doesn't constitute a connection between the attack and the vandalism. I'll also refer you to WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must 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 on those seeking to include disputed content. This is what I've been telling you. TompaDompa (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Her grave wouldn't exist if the attack hadn't happened. The connection is her death. It really isn't any harder than that.

Which "different article" are you thinking of?

This is likely to lead nowhere. I'll open an RfC. AadaamS (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Uh ... millions of graves have been vandalized at random, for hundreds of years. Our articles about the events leading to those deaths should all include the grave vandalism in those cases? The attack on Pearl Harbor, for exanple, should include any vandalism of the graves of those victims? Hm ...--SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor is WP:OTHERSTUFF. How is a military attack on Pearl Harbor with thousands killed comparable to a terrorist attack in the 2010s? For starters, the Japanese aviators wore uniforms during the attack, the attackers were not infiltrating the US as refugees, the political motivation for the attack was different, the attack was on a different scale and 70 years apart. It is hard to see how Pearl Harbor is in any way a relevant comparison.

Also note that when I prompted for "a different article", I get no answer from an editor which is has done many more additions to the talk page than the article itself. That indicates that the editor wants the material completely deleted from enWP, rather than moved. Also this whole debate is a matter of obstructing consensus which comes down to personal preference of the editors per WP:IDONTLIKEIT - nobody has criticized the quality or reliability of the sources given. AadaamS (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also note that Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is a Wikipedia article, not a WP policy or guideline. AadaamS (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

AadaamS, nobody has suggested that the information be added to a different article. I quoted WP:ONUS verbatim, and that was the sole mention of "different article". You characterize me as an editor which is has done many more additions to the talk page than the article itself, which is patently untrue.For the article, I have made >300 edits adding a little more than 20 thousand bytes, and for the talk page, I have made <50 edits adding a little more than 20 thousand bytes (all of this as of my writing this).

this whole debate is a matter of obstructing consensus which comes down to personal preference of the editors per WP:IDONTLIKEIT - nobody has criticized the quality or reliability of the sources given. would seem to suggest that you do not understand WP:ONUS (quoted above by me), which is in fact part of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. The quality or reliability of the sources given is a pure Red herring; the case that has been made—by me as well as others—is that the information is not sufficiently relevant to the attack itself to warrant inclusion on this article. Relevance is of course a consideration when deciding what information to include, see the Wikipedia guideline WP:OFFTOPIC and the essay WP:COATRACK. Of course Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is not a policy or guideline, and I never implied that it was. There is however an essay by the name of WP:RELEVANCE which touches upon the subject. Make of that what you will. TompaDompa (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

An essay is neither a policy nor a guideline. Essays and WP articles are rather weak arguments when faced with reliable sources. Also, TompaDompa has deleted 48K bytes from the article and added 21K bytes, minus 27K in total. For the talk page, the additions are 23K and deletions 3K, plus 20K. The number of edits was not referred to, it was additions so it still stands. Also note that one editor other than myself supported inclusion. No need to bring up "onus", an RfC has already been started to form a clearer consensus.

Also since TompaDompa seems to care about "relevance": this edit claiming "pedestrians" were targeted by the terrorist misleads the readership on the nature of the attack. AadaamS (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also note that Red herring is also a WP article, therefore neither a policy nor a guideline. It is better if TompaDompa stops referring to WP articles at random. It could be posited that using articles in talk page discussion is Garbage. AadaamS (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It is correct that Red herring is an article, not a policy or a guideline. The same can be said for Moving the goalposts (and plenty of other informal fallacies). Of course, that fact does not invalidate criticism of the use of either as a rhetorical device/argumentative technique, and it is pure WP:Wikilawyering to pretend otherwise – if that's the best counter you can come up with, you haven't countered the point at all. Providing links is simply a matter of courtesy towards readers who may not be familiar with those terms for those concepts (say, non-native speakers of English).

Also, c'mon, I know you're not stupid. That wasn't vandalism, and you know it. That's how the |target= parameter is used. For the 7 July London bombings, it says "Public aboard London Underground trains and a bus in Central London". For the Manchester Arena bombing, it says "Concert-goers". For the 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing, it says "Civilians". For the 2017 Turku attack, it says "Civilian pedestrians". For the Parsons Green train bombing, it says "London Underground, civilians". For the June 2017 Brussels attack, it says "Civilians". Or are you going to suggest that all those are the result of "vandalism" too? TompaDompa (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@AadaamS:I agree with TompaDompa that the target parameter should be as in other articles, that is "pedestrians". Also, I think that calling the edit "vandalism" is very much out of line. Calling the edit vandalism means implies that TompaDompa is a vandal. You are an experienced editor, do I really have to remind you of the relevant policies and guidelines? Sjö (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

(can't be bother to type all those :) @Sjö:: for instance the Christchurch mosque shootings is an article Tompadompa has edited 30 times and at the time of writing it says Muslim worshippers. It seems that in one case the religiosity of the target is included and the others not. What do you think, Sjö? Fair enough, "vandalism" is a strong word. Or are the sources treating the attacks differently which is then reflected in the infoboxes? It's an honest question, I have done no edits and added no sources to the Christchurch article. Anyhow, as long as consistently applied, I'll happily abide with how the "target" parameter is populated. AadaamS (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the Christchurch article is in line with using pedestrian in this article, because at the time of the shooting the victims were Muslim worshippers, just like the victims were pedestrians at the Stockholm attack. Sjö (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Except in the Stockholm case, the attacker specifically targeted non-believers. In order to be consistent, the Christchurch article could perhaps instead say Civilians indoors? Then all the articles treat the "target" parameter in similar terminology. AadaamS (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It could say "Mosque attendees", "Mosque-goers", or whatever the closest equivalent of "churchgoers" would be. That would be more in line with "Concert-goers", "Public aboard London Underground trains and a bus in Central London", and "Patrons of Pulse nightclub". I went ahead and changed it. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

TompaDompa seems to have a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:CC3A:CA27:211E:ED2A (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

How so? What type of WP:COI do you mean? TompaDompa (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Note

https://www.dn.se/sthlm/stockholm-terrorist-rakhmat-akilov-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:CC3A:CA27:211E:ED2A (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44399293 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:CC3A:CA27:211E:ED2A (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Tourists are not people?

As of 4/6/2021, the article says, "Akilov chose to attack during an afternoon as there were many people and tourists in the area." I used to think tourists were people. I wonder what the editor who wrote that thinks tourists are.IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)