Talk:May 2013 Stockholm riots/Archive 1

Archive 1

In the news nomination

I have nominated this article for the In the News section of the main page. See WP:ITN/C#2013 Stockholm riots. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Some information here

It seems the Swedish police have some idea of who are organizing the riots on this link (Sverigesradio.se), they refer to 3 groups:

• mainly local youths,
• some of them are local criminals,
• a small group of "professional criminals" (yrkeskriminella), using the riots to commit crimes.

Those accusing me of Swedish pro-immigration bias, should prefer sources like this to claim an immigrant predominancy, when the numbers are out. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Analysis"

Merely quoting Megafonen hardly justifies the heading "Analysis". This is an organization that states on its website that its primary role in these events is "to be present in order to monitor and ensure that there is no more police brutality" (statement on their website), which seems rather peculiar considering the growing number of injured police officers. Whether or not the organization normally does valuable work "promoting social change" in the community is irrelevant in this context. What is relevant is that it seems fairly obvious that they're not a neutral party and so should not be used as the only source of "analysis". That's not to say that they're active participants in the riots (I honestly don't know, but it seems unlikely), but they clearly sympathize with the rioters over the police. Maitreya (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I very much doubt we can offer much in the way of analysis at the moment. I mean, who's had the time to properly analyse the situation? The best we can do is to quote comments from politicians/activists/police/columnists/et cetera. If that's the best we can do, maybe we shouldn't do it at all. /Julle (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Map

A continuously updated map with incidents related to the riots (Source: Sverigesradio.se) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailsson (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello,

I've taken these pictures, and would gladly see them put to use in this article. If the original jpegs are needed for some type of verification, just ask and I'll upload them. I'm completely new to Wikipedia, so please be patient with my lack of experience.

The pictures: http://imgur.com/a/vhL5m#4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telefonkiosk (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In the sidebar to the left, under "toolbox", there is a link "upload file." Click on that and you'll launch the Upload Wizard so that you can upload your photos to Wiki; from there you can to add them to the article using the line [[<''filename''>.jpg]] Solicitr (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This article has a number of problems

As of writing, this article is being used to push a political agenda, focusing on the (assumed) ethnic background of the youths involved, hammering in the message in early parts of the article. It mentions Rami al-Khamisi by name as a leader in the riots although there seems to be no source that he has been involved at all (other than being active in the protests concerning the earlier police shooting, which, by the way, I would argue we don't have enough reliable sources to actually mention as the main cause for the riots). And so on. /Julle (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't it right to mention that similar riots occurred in other locations across Europe and were also orchestrated by "immigrant youths", which has been a euphemism for Muslims? If this isn't the case in Stockholm, maybe it should be mentioned how it differs from the Paris suburb riots and the Brussels riots that followed. Emmetlang (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet if it was white people rioting you wouldn't have a thing to say about it, would you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.205.228 (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, we're discussing the accuracy of the article, not the topic per se. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that the term "armed man" implies a gun. Again this is due to the political agenda. Shooting a man with a gun doesn't sound as bad as shooting a man with a machete. Technically you could be armed with a stick but that is not how we use the term these days especially in news stories. Treva26 (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is the statements that

The riots mostly involved immigrant youths; more than 80%[4] of Husby's population have an immigrant background, mainly from Turkey, the Middle East, and Somalia.

first of all: the police claims that the riots are coordinated from outside the areas, only 12 youths have been arrested of some 200-300 rioters, so the sources provided proves nothing about the heritage of the rioters, then we have a undue synthesis (WP:SYNTH) in violation of the rules. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a source about them being Muslims. Even if the list of countries is correct it doesn't imply any religious connection (e.g. did they meet at the mosque, etc). Remember this is a riot, not Jihad. Please don't use Wikipedia for anti-immigration propaganda. HappyPonyLand (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: parties involved

The civil conflict infobox puts "Swedish Police Service" and "Youths" on each side of this as opposing parties of the conflict. That's a very narrow way to look at it: the number of ordinary citizens out in the streets trying to calm down the rioters outnumber, if I've understood Swedish news correctly, the youths involved in the rioting. Aren't they part of it too? Et cetera. /Julle (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There are other problems with the info box as well. It lists 50-100 rioters, but this is just the estimated number from the first night, not the total. It lists 100-200 "right wing extremists", but this figure is not referenced (and anyway, I have a problem with automatically lumping nationalists into the "extremist" category without so much as an explanation). Most importantly, though, it is silly to have summary statistics for a situation like this. If it were some battle in war, lists of army strengths and casualties would make sense. But this just doesn't work for a series of very fluid riots. The info box does not serve a useful purpose here, and I really suggest it be removed. 206.248.191.240 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Background

I've removed the section completly since the reason for the riots isn't directly related to the man that got shot. According to Jerzy Sarnecki (here) this isn't a serious reason for the ongoing riots. I'm well aware that several newspapers (who have been used as sources) state otherwise, but Sarnecki as a professor in criminology in Sweden has a better understanding of the facts here than a reporter from a different country. And BTW, 'this' is the reason why there's no article on svwp, things are progressing to fast for an article to be useful at the moment since there's little or no background knowledge. Since the consensus is different here I'll confirm to the local consensus here. GameOn (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. If many sources report the shooting as the cause it should be in here. If there are sources that say otherwise they can be in here too. You are reverting far to much. Please stop. 80.132.83.232 (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Having read the article before and after your revision, I have to say that it now is much less informative. The article should state the background for the riots. You're also misinterpreting Sarnecki. He says that the shooting of the 68-year-old man wasn't the root cause of the riots, but that it may have sparked them. He also says that there are legitimate grievances causing the riot, such as unemployment, educational problems and discontent with the police, but that young men with criminal histories take over the riots. This isn't a basis to remove the background. If anything, the old background should have been expanded to include what Sarnecki says. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the "Background" section, expanded to include Sarnecki's opinion (and with a slightly shorter account of the shooting). As I said in my edit summary (and as others have said here), when sources differ we note that in the article; we don't excise the explanations we don't think are "correct". (I can't read Swedish, by the way, so I may have misrepresented what Sarnecki said – I'd be grateful if somebody could check that for me.) DoctorKubla (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article should treat Jerzy Sarnecki and Megafonen (which seems to be the only source for the first paragraph, though that fact is sneakily omitted [edit: I didn't mean this as saying an editor knowingly hid stuff]) as equally credible sources. The Swedish article does a better job at the background section. Narayanese (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

I've requested that this page be placed under protection to prevent further POV/unsourced edits and to keep from having any edit wars. Here is the request page Coinmanj (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Insertions of unsourced material

The insertion of unsourced material concerning "rumors" is not permitted in Wikipedia. Lepuslept, please discuss edit changes before inserting such material. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Has Lepuslept not violated the three revert rule? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed some blatantly unsourced claims

The claims where:

• 80% of the rioters where immigrants, unsourced per above,
• the rioters where muslims, why? similarly unsourced, since only 12 have been arrested,
• the riot occurred because of (?) the killing of the machete-man, why? many voices instead claim that it is the unemployment, or the police, or the economical constraints in the suburb in question, I changed to occurring after

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if the rioters were Muslims (many immigrants from dominantly Islamic countries are not, Sweden is a fairly secular place) and this was verified with reliable sources, I don't see the point of mentioning it unless religious affiliation would actually be an important part of the rioters. We'd hardly write out "Christian rioters" for civil protests if it hadn't anything to do with their religion, would we? /Julle (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Julle, I'm not aware whether the rioters are predominantly Muslim or not. A very informal web search for the string "Sweden riot Muslim" did not turn up any articles from the big international news organizations - at least not on the first couple of pages of results. But IF a connection between religion and rioting in Sweden has been reported somewhere in the news, it should be included in Wikipedia as well. That is the standard Wikipedia follows. So please, see if you can find such an article. For what it's worth, I did find a short commentary in the reasonably mainstream (though obviously conservative) "American Spectator". This commentary more than hints at a Muslim connection, and specifically asks whether news outlets like Reuters are avoiding it for reasons of political correctness. That's as far as my quick internet search got me, and it isn't enough to convince me to include the "Muslim connection" in this Wikipedia article. My mind is still open on this issue. 206.248.191.240 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it should be included if such a connection exists.

As someone who talks to the press on a regular basis (for Swedish-language Wikipedia), I'm relieved and happy every time I'm not misquoted, quoted out of context or anything like that. Journalists often write about subjects they're not familiar with (their expertise is journalism, after all, not e.g. Swedish civil unrest), usually with a tight deadline. They make mistakes. They simplify. They get things wrong. That's understandable.

But they're not good sources. And American media writing about a country they kow very little about, where they don't understand the language? That's a really, really hard job. They're bound to make mistakes if they're to keep up with the news cycle. I mean, even the Swedish newspapers have a lot of trouble grasping the situation.

Someone writing something somewhere doesn't mean we should repeat it. It should take more than that. /Julle (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What shooting?

It looks like somebody's also removed the entire account of the shooting. There are a couple of clues that a shooting was what set the rioting off:

The police opened a probe into the initial shooting. This is the first mention of a shooting.

They expressed the belief that the shooting incident was used by the youths to cause trouble.

So – what shooting? Koro Neil (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I missed that it was mentioned later on. As I posted on this talk page (under Backgorund) I removed it since it wasn't believed to be the background by a source that is better than journalists in other countries trying to write a news article as fast as possible. Thanks for pointing this out. I've removed and rewritten the paragraphs. GameOn (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not a good reason to remove the discussion altogether. We are not allowed on Wikipedia to decide which mainstream news sources are acceptable and which ones are not. Right now, a significant number of news organizations claim the shooting sparked the riots. That absolutely must be reported here, whether it is a correct or incorrect assessment. You are, of course, welcome (and encouraged) to ADD other sources that dispute these claims. 206.248.191.240 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems rather vague

The description of this rioting seems very vague. Who is doing the rioting ? Is the "immigrants" ? Is it the right-wing anti-immigrants ? Is it both of them ? It seems counterproductive to bury this in some kind of cover-up. I've read on some online news websites this week, completely contradictory information.Eregli bob (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is a textbook case of PC hyper-sanitization where the reader is only informed of the trivial details, and not the underlying issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.214.192 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We only have the trivial details since this just happened (and might continue during the weekend). We know that there has been riots. We don't know why. We know that most of the people aprehended by the police are known by the police for earlier offenses (something we all could have guessed before hand). We know that not all of the rioters are from the suburbs where the riots have been taking place (once again, no surprise). We know that right-wing extremists gathered and followed people around until the police sent them away and brought some of them in for questioning. GameOn (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I've got to say that I love the comment about "hyper-sanitization where the reader is only informed of the trivial details". More to the point, this is a fluid situation as GameOn said, and people just don't yet know what to write. Wikipedia articles invariably suffer from the same malaise whenever they report on very recent events that no one has yet understood. Some editors seem to forget that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. 206.248.191.240 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just me that's confused. I heard one TV show where the reporter said the rioters were disgruntled immigrants, and another TV show where the reporter said that the rioters were disgruntled right-wing ethnic Swedes who don't like immigrants. Maybe they are both right ? Are they fighting each other, or both fighting the police ? It seems to me to be counter-productive to be obfuscating this information because of some mis-conceived correctness.Eregli bob (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We're not obfuscating, we don't know. The situation is confused, as you so well illustrate with your comment above, and opinions are far more readily available than facts. We're not trying to hide something, we're trying to avoid rumours and speculation. Of course the article is vague. How could it possibly be anything but vague in a situation like this? Obfuscating something is only possible if there's actual knowledge to hide. /Julle (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dates along with days of week

Please avoid mentioning days of the week without including their dates. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Youths?

Why are these extremists referred to as youths? Youth is defined as "the time of life between childhood and adulthood (maturity)" by Wikipedia itself, and there's no evidence suggesting that these rioters were teenagers. I understand what you mean by "youth"(young man/woman in a colloquial sense), but in my opinion it is too informal for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.53.35 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the sources call them youths. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which relies on sources, not opinion. If a the majority of the sources call them "youths" then the article will call them youths; not young adults, not immigrants, not Muslim, just - youths -. Coinmanj (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Might as well just call them "bipedal, symmetrical humanoids" then? And the article referring to them as simply "immigrants" is HIGHLY misleading. What immigrants? From Germany? Italy? USA? Antarctica??? They're all nonwhite/non-European of (mostly) muslim background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.209.14 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Take your racism elsewhere. This is an encyclopedic project. --89.0.237.18 (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when did the truth become racism?! 217.208.231.113 (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral points of view and disputable sources

I don't find The Gateway Pundit blog a useful source of information on this topic, given that it seems to rely on Fria Tider (a Swedish e-zine) for facts, which it even manages to misinterpret (such as the rumour about owners of torched cars getting parking tickets being retold with the police being blamed for the ticketing - which they would have nothing to do with, if there even were any ticketing in the first place).

When its vitriolic postings are then referenced for a claim that "the police tried to stop citizens from protecting their own property" (with an edit summary saying exactly the same), is there any WP policy that will defend keeping that claim in this article, even in the form of a minority viewpoint? I'd like to revert that edit, but I don't know whether I can cite an obvious policy violation. It hardly belongs in the "Police response" section, anyway.

For the record, I'm doubtful about Fria Tider as a source too, as they have an agenda diametrically opposed to that of Megafonen, but currently I have no means of either verifying or refuting their factual claims. --SM5POR (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As shown here, Fria tider is a far-right newspaper, run by a man with a heavily criminal background, and with an extreme bias. For the love of all this encyclopedic, don't use it as a source. Norvegia suecica (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is The Toronto Sun a biased source as well? http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/28/from-somali-refugee-to-swedish-reporter Foofbun (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Date listed in background section

Why does this section cite riots since 1719 . . . surely this is a mistake?

Ed8r (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you feel it's a mistake? The first (documented) riots was in 1719, adding this information puts it more in a historic contects since it's not something that's new and hasn't happened before in Stockholm. GameOn (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The civilian patrols

This article currently mentions nothing about the fact that hundreds (thousands?) of civilian Swedes have gotten together to defend their neighbourhoods themselves, in some cases successfully driving the rioters out. KillerBoogie (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Then please add some info about it. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)