Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:31, 9 April 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2017 Stockholm truck attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 1 day

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2017 Stockholm truck attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2017 Stockholm truck attack at the Reference desk.

A news item involving 2017 Stockholm truck attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 April 2017.

[REDACTED]

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Suspect

One media outlet described that the "driver is on the run". I have absolutely no idea whether this is correct or not, but if it is, it should be added to the main page possibly (once confirmed). 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you give a link here? Firework917 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Shots fired

I removed a sentence about shots fired; so far, this has not been confirmed, and Swedish media reporting this has been very clear it is hearsay in a chaotic situation. It can be added when confirmed, if it happened. /Julle (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

To illustrate, Swedish Radio just reported "... and the police now confirms shots have been fired at Fridhemsplan, but this might not have been related to the lorry attack" when the other reporter broke in and said "actually, we just got word that the police denies shots have been fired at Fridhemsplan", so this should probably not go into an encyclopedia right now. /Julle (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Fatalities

It seems like at least three persons are dead according to reasonably reliable media accounts, but there's a lot of confusion around this in Swedish media at the moment; I wouldn't put any specific number in the info box. /Julle (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a '+5' in the infobox without citation at the moment. Thoughts on replacing it with "at least 3"? Proaralyst (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Terror (and murder)

When police say they're treating a brand new case as terrorism, that means they'll use counterterrorism tactics to aid in their investigation into whether or not the suspect is a terrorist. It does not mean he definitely was, or even probably was. Since this suspect's not only completely unknown, motives and all, but apparently alive, he'll also have a murder trial (if police even press charges). If he's convicted of murder, this will be a murder. If he's convicted of terrorism (or terror stuff), this will be terrorism.

It's just dumb to jump the gun when the driver dies, but when he doesn't, it's libelous. We have rules about that sort of thing, so go easy on the murder and terrorism categories (by completely avoiding them). And remember that "terror" and "terrorism" are different words, just like all -ism words are. Encyclopedias aren't meant to be sensational and as fast as possible, but newspapers are. Don't play their game.

For my own sanity, I'm going to step away from this article (before the Reactions section shows up), but this guy was wondering why I removed dumb libel, so I thought I'd explain. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

It is clearly a terror a attack the Swedish PM has called it one.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He said that there's much that suggests that it is one, but it remains to be officially confirmed AFAIK. Sjö (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure an article is forthcoming, that will contain a written confession from the Jihadist that ran over the Infidels with the truck - confessing he is a Muslim terrorist and it was a terrorist attack. (rolling of eyes) ... Cllgbksr (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism"

As I believe, there's no proof that it's linked to Islamic terrorism, although it's likely. I don't think people should jump to conclusions. ~~Wh1ter0se (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Its pretty much certain it was Islamic extremists.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's likely, then why bother censoring facts? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then... Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Gotta enjoy censorship. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't report all facts; we only report verifiable facts. Unless reliable sources call it Islamic terrorism, neither do we. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Given all of the recent vehicle-ramming attacks in Europe, I think it's safe to say there's an alarming pattern here. You can't deny it. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...it doesn't mean zip for Misplaced Pages, as it is an encyclopedia and not a chrystal ball.

"This has happened:

• At 2.53pm the police were alerted about a lorry having rammed several people in a busy street in central Stockholm.
• At least 2 people are dead.
• No arrests have been made.
• There is no confirmation about the incident being a terrorist attack, the Swedish Security Service said.
• However, at a press conference Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said: "Everything indicates this is a terror attack."
• Large parts of central Stockholm are cordoned off.
• All metro services are cancelled.
• All trains passing Stockholm's Central Station have been cancelled.
• The parliament building (Riksdag) and the government headquarters Rosenbad are in lock-down."— Swedish public radio Vivo (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Norrmalm

We might add a better map, zooming in on Norrmalm?--Rævhuld (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Use the word lorry

Dear community. This page is written in British English. So please use our words, instead of American -ish. It's lorry and not truck. Thank you.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Truck was the wording originally used in the page and should be retained per MOS:RETAIN. MOS:RETAIN states "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another". There are no MOS:TIES here because Sweden is not an English-speaking nation. AusLondonder (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

But according to this talk page, the article should be written in British English.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That template was added afterwards and I have now removed it as it violates MOS:RETAIN and MOS:TIES. AusLondonder (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It was added there before. And may I mention that Sweden is part of Europe? So we should use the European spelling and European words!--Rævhuld (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it was not there before this version of the page was created. I'm well aware that Sweden is part of Europe. But Europe has no universal language. There is no such thing as "European spelling" and "European words". France24 is using truck; as is Deutsche Welle. Euronews is using both truck and lorry but with a clear preference for truck AusLondonder (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Swedish government emergency authorities are using truck as is the City of Stockholm. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion. I merly added the template after looking at Sweden, and seeing it was tagged with UK-English. I did not know (or remember rather) of WP:RETAIN. My bad! (t) Josve05a (c) 20:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

nb edit conflictThis is a very silly argument, RETAIN says that the first variety used should stay, and that may be UK. However, in a similair situation on the Nice attack article, we decided to use 'truck', since this was a more universally understood term. UK sources frquently use it these days. Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The first variety used was truck anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Upload the image of the suspect

There are two images from the Swedish police here. Should we integrate it into the article?--Rævhuld (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not until the person is found guilty in court. Vivo (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Stockholm Waterfront

Hi TompaDompa. I thought part of the incident occurred right outside the complex? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ceannlann gorm: Not right outside it. It was a few blocks away, as can be seen on this map. TompaDompa (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Ok, thanks! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

BOLO of the man wanted for questioning

I removed the part about him having dark skin, because I don't see how it is relevant. No article or official statement mentions his skin color, instead they focus on his clothing. My reason stated was: "No article or police statement has brought up the person's skin as a BOLO, however they mention his clothes: green jacket, white shoes and grey hoodie. Ex: http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/inrikes/881354-man-fri-fot-kannetecken".

This was however added back with the reasoning "it is clear from the picture.". Perhaps, but I still don't think it is relevant and seems to me to be more of a bias than sticking to what is being posted to quote Finnusertop under the topic of "Islamic Terrorism": "We don't report all facts; we only report verifiable facts. Unless reliable sources call it Islamic terrorism, neither do we." (the same should apply to this, no?)

I propose that the part about the skin color be removed, but I won't remove it again since it was re-added already. 155.4.131.112 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A description of the culprit is relevant for the article. This is an encyclopedia and not a safe space.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

And the description used by media is of his clothes, not his skin color. 155.4.131.112 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator

The perpetrator section is simply for those who are involved in carrying out the act act. I don't know how "Islamic State-inspired" is supposed to be someone. We never present a perpetrator section upon whom they are inspired, unless that group is directly involved they are not listed. A simple sympathy for ISIL doesn't justify adding "IS-inspired" to the perpetrator as it against the very definition and use of the section in the infobox. If this is a lone wolf simply inspired by them, then the assailant is the perpetrator. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not true, Khalid Masood was inspired by international terrorism. It was reported numerous times and is referenced in the Westminster article. It is referenced under "Motives" 2602:30A:C0D3:4FA0:45DE:9F0D:5CE2:767E (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing "motive" with "perpetrator". The thing being discussed here is "perpetrator" ie someone who committed or was responsible the attack, not "motive" ie the reason or intent behind it. I suggest you to read 2017 Westminster attack. There is no place where inspiration from a terrorist group is called a perpetrator. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Tabloid as a reputable source?

This article uses the "Aftonbladet" tabloid as a source for claims that the perpetrator was Uzbek and inspired by ISIS. However, I don't believe that this falls under WP:RELIABLE, seeing as the U.K. Daily Mail tabloid was recently explicitly denoted by Misplaced Pages as and unreliable source so why would this be different? Can't we wait for a more reputable source to make these claims before including them in a encyclopedic article? I don't want to remove anything without consensus, though. Maybe, I'm wrong. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As I understand the consensus on the Swedish Misplaced Pages, Aftonbladet is not always reliable. It can be used for uncontroversial statements of facts, or for information on what someone they interviewed has said. But in a high-profile crime like this I would never use it as a source for something that's only attributed to something like "according to information we received" or "sources say". Sjö (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Err on the side of caution with WP:BLP in mind. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Aftonbladet is not comparable to Daily Mail. That is misinformation.--94.234.170.69 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said it was as unreliable as the Daily Mail, but it's not exactly the most reliable either. Sjö (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Aftonbladet is as good as any other mass media source. You just have to be careful. Sadly, we can't get peer-reviewed articles on everything. If you want sources that are better than mass media, you could use the Swedish police as source.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. A tabloid is a tabloid, gossipy and sensational in mature without considering whether story is true or not. That is why tabloids are avoided here. In addition, the Swedish police have already made information available and there are other sources, so there is no need to use it. Regardless, we should err on the side of caution in such a circumstance. I think it can be use however if other reliable sources use it though, with clear representation that the report is from Aftonbladet.

MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Assailant

The first suspect who was reported to be a 39 year old Uzbekistani has been stated to be only in the vicinity and not behind the wheel. There isn't much information about the second one. Unless any definite information is released, it is better to avoid any premature blaming on them. I have therefore decided to remove them from assailants list of infobox to avoid any premature blaming. I thought about shifting the to suspected perpetrators but I suspect it will be create the same problem. If the community is okay with it, then it can be added to "Suspected perpetrators" for the meanwhile or it can be kept off completely form infobox temporarily until details are clear. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Xenophobia

It'd be nice if we don't immediately claim they're Tunisian next time, especially now there's reports of him originating from Uzbekistan. ~~Wh1ter0se (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Xenophobia". You mean we shouldn't use information because knowledge is xenophobic nowadays?--Rævhuld (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody claimed he was of tunisean origin. Anyway how is that xenophobic?Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism

I mean, if it walks like a duck and quarks like a duck ... this killing people with lorries is just so Islamic terrorism. And culprit actually claimed he did it for ISIS. So maybe we should MENTION it in the article? It's important. Or is knowledge not allowed on Misplaced Pages? Is this a safe space?--Rævhuld (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly this is Islamic terrorism but the media have their head in the sands and are not calling that so neither should we (wikipedia).Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the NYT writes about it AND the ISIS claims responsibility.--Rævhuld (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added it sourced to the article.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld We don't edit and add just based on hunches or what we feel. A recent car-ramming, if not a lorry one, wasn't found to have terror links (http://www.qatar-tribune.com/news-details/id/56981). And no source has mentioned the culprit making such claims that "he did it for ISIS". The only thing that has been known are that there have been reports that he had pasted pro-ISIS propaganda in the past. We edit and add based on reliable sources here. That is not safe space, or "knowledge is not allowed here", simple rules. Please follow the rules here. Any kind of OR and self-interpretation is not allowed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, using New York Times as a source is completely self-interpretation. Lol.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld So just because you say New York Times "said so", I checked it but it didn't make any report that the suspect claimed to do it for ISIS, so yes that is complete self-interpretation on your part. Some earlier reports of pro-ISIS propaganda cannot be cited as the reason here, nor any hunches or what you feel. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Also Rævhuld, your claim that ISIS "claimed" the attack is also OR as until now the group has made no such claim which it typically does. Regardless, instead of being based on anything real what the sources say, you seem to basing your claims on earlier reports of the suspect posting pro-ISIS propaganda in the past. That is complete OR, not allowed to any extent here. Please be careful with your edits and what you say in your comments so as to not commit OR and self-interpretation as well as deliberate assumption of bad faith instead of blaming others simply based on what you seem to think. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added all notable non-OR material without any obvious attempt to fit any particular POV on religion or facts or group-based which your edits seemed to be doing so. We only rely on reliable sources here. So I've added their statement about local media reporting that a suspect had expressed sympathy for ISIS in past. No edits that are OR, self-interpretation and merely to fit a POV can be made. Please be careful from now on, following the rules while editing and don't presume bad faith or throw false accusations on others. Hope this solves the needless controversy. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

NYT is a reliable source. And that you aren't able to read it is not my problem.--Rævhuld (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld I read the NYT articles, and read that there is nothing of sort about the suspect saying he did it for ISIS or ISIS accepting responsibility you claimed. Please read the sources yourself. Also please don't make claims about anything I didn't say, such as insinuating that I dubbed it as "unreliable". Obviosuly false accusations aren't permitted here. Also please know some "edit war"

warnings aren't going to scare me off. I made one revert, but that too after assimilation with other edits and didn't revert since, not for edit-warring. If so, then you too were edit-warring, chsnges in a line doesn't mean it won't be a revert: . MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Title of article needs changed

Should read 2017 Stockholm Terror attack Cllgbksr (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Why?Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately running over pedestrians in a crowded shopping area and killing four, Sweden PM said “This indicates that it is an act of terror", suspect being held for terror related crimes...you know.. the little stuff...? Or would you rather classify it as "driver inattention"?..maybe he was texting and not paying attention as he ran them over...maybe the accelerator was stuck...file it under "mechanical failure"?... Cllgbksr (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The article states it was terrorism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 Stockholm terrorist attack? If it does need changing (and I'm not convinced at the moment that it does) that would seem to be a reasonable one. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to change. The present title is precise enough and not too precise WP:PRECISE – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I see, it's ok to use terrorist in the article - just don't put it on the headline. Makes a lot of sense. (shaking of head)... Ideologues see the world as they want it to be - realists see it for what it is. Cllgbksr (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Related/unconfirmed reports/incidents

Some user here seem to be intent on removing any information regarding this event that is not "confirmed". Specifically this seems to regard:

• Reports of the perpetrator's support of ISIS
• Reports of multiple arrests after police raids across several locations following the attack

There are no requirement on Misplaced Pages that information or reports have to be confirmed by state authorities for it to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages. If only state-confirmed information was allowed tons of information would have to be removed and this would be very problematic for obvious reasons. Inclusion is dependent on being credible and widely reported by reliable sources, of course as long as the nature of other reports are specified (and it may be mentioned that some reports are indeed "unconfirmed"). I can't see that there is any precedent for simply deleting all material that isn't state-authorised. User2534 (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note about quoting Swedish government agencies

They fall under URL§9 and are non copyrighted, meaning you can quote the following freely:

• http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se
• https://www.msb.se/
• https://www.krisinformation.se/
• https://www.regeringen.se/

They all release information and statements in English. Take a look, so that I'm not the only one using them. For now they should be considered the best sources of information you can find, trumping any & all newspaper sources.
 P.S. URL§9 does not apply to images/photographs.
Carl Fredrik 12:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, "URL§9" refers to this part of Upphovsrättslagen. Another source that can be used for the same reason is https://polisen.se/ TompaDompa (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

there is no convicted perpetrator

I find it deeply unethical that there is named perpetrator this early and without anyone being convicted. Please take the name down, this attack is still under investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.58.197 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed to "suspected perpetrator". WWGB (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not enough, the Swedish Police have not released any official information about the identity of the suspect. Any information about his name is probably taken from internet forums like flashback. There should not be any names published. The information is not even sourced as there is no official channel that have confirmed the identity!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.58.197 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. I have consequently removed the name from the article. Keep in mind that the incorrect name that circulated online was briefly on this article. That is clearly unacceptable. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, I've removed this suggestive material. Even without naming the suspect on Misplaced Pages, he's still an easily identifiable living person and probably has a trial coming up. Associating him, even namelessly, with something Misplaced Pages declares is certainly murder, terrorism and criminal pisses on the spirit of a justice system that sometimes acquits defendants after hearing evidence. Sweden uses one of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Removing pertinent and related information

In a long series of edits TompbaDompa (talk · contribs) has removed highly pertinent information from the article, in part based on the fact that "it seems to be criticizing the United States". Yeah, it is, the article it is sourced to is less sparing than the summary here. So please do not remove information just because it does not suit you, that is not what WP:RS or WP:NPOV are about.

The same is true for the motivation section where the suspects association to ISIL is mentioned. This is done a very formal and neutral way, summarizing sources. There is no reason to remove any of this: Carl Fredrik 14:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticizing the United States in Misplaced Pages's voice is not WP:NPOV. There's a big difference between saying "The US was preoccupied with ABC" and saying "The US was accused of being preoccupied with ABC by XYZ". In this particular case, the major problem is that the phrasing Responses by the heads of state or foreign ministers of several European countries had been issued by the same evening, with the American public and officials more concerned with the initiation of American bombing of Syria, which began on the same day. interprets the thought processes of the Americans. A more factual (and therefore WP:NPOV) way of phrasing it might be "In the US, news about the initiation of American bombing of Syria, which began on the same day, made up the majority of news reports."

As for the associations with ISIL, the text is NPOV. Placing it under the heading of "Motivation" is not – it's conjecture. It is, for instance, possible to have associations with ISIL and be motivated by a different terrorist organization or ideology. I changed the headings to reflect this more accurately, and hope that'll be a satisfactory compromise. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done. It's difficult to get these types of articles right on the first try, because by their nature they start off as a heap of various (often contradictory) statements.

This doesn't mean we should get rid of everything that isn't neutral, we just have to word it properly and to replace okay sources with good sources. It's often better to have an okay source for something, then to replace it — because this keeps the really shitty sources from being inserted.

And as an aside to some of the edits, both Nyheter24 and Der Spiegel are high quality news outlets (especially DS) — so we should not be motivating removal based on them being low quality. Carl Fredrik 15:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 

While what you're saying is true in most cases, not all of it is true in this case. Per WP:BLP we should remove everything that isn't neutral. That's why I'm so eager to remove everything dubious from this particular article – the threshold for inclusion is way higher than it is for regular articles because this is subject to WP:BLP. TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Calling it an attack

Currently there are scant official sources calling it an attack. Please do not definite as such, especially in the lede — as it implies that there exists a target. Await further corroboration from other sources.

The fact is that some time during the 90's a similar event occurred in Sweden, which was not an attack of any sorts — simply a madman running over pedestrians (can not find a newspaper sources right now). We have to little information to attach a motive, hence: avoiding the label attack is the least we could do. Carl Fredrik 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article includes the word "attack". "...as it implies that there exists a target"; not necessarily.86.185.31.130 (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

DO NOT USE ATTACK IN LEDE

Ok, no need to shout! Why not? The word is used immediately beneath. Clearly it was an "attack". "Deed" sounds stupid. 86.185.31.130 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Sweden articles
• High-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles