Talk:Mats Löfving
 | A news item involving Mats Löfving was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 March 2023. |  |
 | A fact from Mats Löfving appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
( )
Löfving
- ... that a radio interview with Swedish police chief Mats Löfving (pictured) was reported as "a bombshell"?
Source: Paulina Neuding, "Sweden’s new epidemic: clan-based crime", in The Spectator (US edition at spectator.us), 17 September 2020: "The interview was a bombshell."
- Reviewed: Danièle Aron-Rosa
Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC).
First thing is that I would like to see a little more about how Löfving's statement is deemed partly true according to researchers.[1] Let's tell the reader that Löfving is not entirely off his rocker by suggesting some sort of countermeasures. And we can say that he started a taskforce to fight gangs last November after the brazen killing of a 15-year-old boy which he said was the final straw.[2] Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Otherwise, the photo is public domain, the article's length and date are appropriate, and the referencing is good. The emphasis on the quoted word "all" should be changed to italics rather than capital letters. The hook is properly formatted and supported by article reference. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Binksternet, the word ALL is in capital letters in the quotation. Do you think we should be editing quotations for style? When it comes to “how Löfving's statement is deemed partly true according to researchers“, I am afraid you have lost me. He made a statement which no one seems to have questioned, as a matter of fact. Clearly, saying it was controversial. Are you suggesting that controversial statements can’t be reported without “researchers” investigating whether they are “partly true” or not? If you think something like that is in the DYK Rules, or in any guidance, please give a link. Moonraker (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The style guide says that we commonly edit quotations to fit Wikipedia's house style. Regarding the word ALL in all-caps, MOS:CONFORM says that direct quotes containing all caps "should generally be normalized to plain text. If it clearly indicates emphasis, use italic emphasis." One method of italic emphasis is the HTML emphasis tag, coded as <em>...</em>. The style guide MOS:ALLCAPS gives a variation of the same advice: "Do not write with all capitals for emphasis; italics are preferred..." The latter guide also offers a kind of bolding option with Template:Strong or HTML strong tags. I think italics are easier.
- For the controversial statement by Löfving, I'm just looking for more information, to add more viewpoints and analysis, to get more neutrality in the article. The only DYK rule of concern is 4a, asking for neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- On the formatting point, Binksternet, you have persuaded me and I have taken out the capitals. On your "neutrality" point, we are dealing here with a senior policeman who has made statements on matters of his professional judgement. He is notable and what he says is relevant to the article, especially if it comes as "a bombshell". I agree that if there were a variety of different comments on his judgement, or his way of expressing it, which could be sourced from reliable sources, perhaps some of them supportive and some not, then neutrality would call for balance in what is included. But the only specific comments I can find are the two non-supportive ones already there. If you can find any others, do please add them. WP neutrality policy can’t require material to exist if it doesn’t exist. Moonraker (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was forced to remove the Sputnik source (and dependent text) because Sputnik is deprecated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I rearranged some of the remaining text and added a bunch of stuff about Löfving responding to immigrant violence as well as violence against immigrants, starting from the 2014 mosque arson attacks in Sweden. But now I'm an editor of the article and have given up the role of reviewer. We need a new reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Insert icon for requesting a new review. Flibirigit (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was forced to remove the Sputnik source (and dependent text) because Sputnik is deprecated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I rearranged some of the remaining text and added a bunch of stuff about Löfving responding to immigrant violence as well as violence against immigrants, starting from the 2014 mosque arson attacks in Sweden. But now I'm an editor of the article and have given up the role of reviewer. We need a new reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- On the formatting point, Binksternet, you have persuaded me and I have taken out the capitals. On your "neutrality" point, we are dealing here with a senior policeman who has made statements on matters of his professional judgement. He is notable and what he says is relevant to the article, especially if it comes as "a bombshell". I agree that if there were a variety of different comments on his judgement, or his way of expressing it, which could be sourced from reliable sources, perhaps some of them supportive and some not, then neutrality would call for balance in what is included. But the only specific comments I can find are the two non-supportive ones already there. If you can find any others, do please add them. WP neutrality policy can’t require material to exist if it doesn’t exist. Moonraker (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Binksternet, the word ALL is in capital letters in the quotation. Do you think we should be editing quotations for style? When it comes to “how Löfving's statement is deemed partly true according to researchers“, I am afraid you have lost me. He made a statement which no one seems to have questioned, as a matter of fact. Clearly, saying it was controversial. Are you suggesting that controversial statements can’t be reported without “researchers” investigating whether they are “partly true” or not? If you think something like that is in the DYK Rules, or in any guidance, please give a link. Moonraker (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The image is suitably licensed, the hook facts are cited inline and I think the article is sufficiently neutral. I detected no copyright issues and have added Binksternet to the credits. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
