Talk:Paramedics incident in Oslo 2007

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Urgent need for cleanup - nom for DYK

I have nominated this article to appear on the front page's WP:DYK section, however, feedback suggests that it needs cleaning up or else that won't happen. __meco (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

The title Ambulance controversy (Oslo) is assumedly an attempt to translate the idiomatic Norwegian name of this controversy, however, for an English audience without prior knowledge of the case this name doesn't work well. It doesn't describe what the case is about, and that it should. So I propose someone come up with a better name for this article and that it is moved consequently. __meco (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do see know that it wasn't such a great move. Maybe 2007 Sofienberg park controversy? --Eisfbnore (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would make it sound like it was a controversy about the park. __meco (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for re-naming article:

the Paramedics incident in Oslo 2007 : The evaluations (and consequences) by one (or both) paramedics at the scene, resulted in sanctions against driver(s). And one of the drivers, received support from courts of justice, so that some of the sanctions were listed — after the incident.
Ambulanse-incident?
"Ambulanse"-incident`?
Sofienberg park incident of 2007 or Incident in Sofienberg Park 2007

The controversy belongs in the "aftermath"-section, of such an article.

It is totally wrong to translate to "Ambulance controversy", IMO.
("Ambulanse-saken" is a non-logical name for Norwegian speakers, because there has never been any controversy, in this case, about emergency vehichles.)--Lærarstudent (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. As I see it, the case is basically about an ambulance that didn't pick up a man that should have been picked up. Then followed all kinds of questions: Who's fault was it? Was there any racism involved? etc… Since (1) the case is about an ambulance that didn't pick up a man, and (2) the case is constitutionalized as "Ambulansesaken" in Norway, my opinion is that at least the word "ambulance" need to be included. But yeah, "ambulance controversy" is not the best.. If anyone come up with a good suggestion including "ambulance" I will support it. Perhaps something like "Ambulance neglect case"? Doesn't sound too good.. Apart from that, I think the major problem here is not the title, but the article text itself. – Danmichaelo (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not about an "ambulance that didn't pick up". The ambulance has not been criticised of anything.

(It's about "two paramedics". Who should have waited until the police arrived. Instead of requesting police, and then leaving the scene. And it's about the aftermath.--Lærarstudent (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken! After re-reading your last comment, I tend towards supporting "Paramedics incident in Oslo 2007". – Danmichaelo (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant link?

http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article4206787.ece

This link might be somewhat relevant to the reactions to the legal proceedings.--Hirzflag (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing wording needs some help

Under the heading "The Event", it reads "However, the ambulance paramedic crew decided not to take Farah to the hospital on the grounds that he seemed to be intoxicated and urinated with the urine hitting first the trouser leg of one of the paramedics and then the ambulance car". (confusing parts bolded) The way this is written it reads as if it was Mr. Farah who "seemed to be...urinated". It also reads as if it was Mr. Farah's intention to urinate on the paramedic's trouser leg, rather than on the paramedic himself. Finally, "ambulance car" is redundant; the term "ambulance" is sufficient to convey the type of vehicle it was. I think that the sentence should be changed to "...on the grounds that he seemed to be intoxicated, and because he urinated on one of the paramedics, as well as on the ambulance". Thoughts? Bricology (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]