Talk:Crime in Sweden

"Sweden-bashing"

This is an extremely obscure, agenda-driven, and slanted opinion piece page that contains no statistical facts whatsoever regarding the crime situation in Sweden. As such the link should be permanently removed from this page.

In addition, I have created a personal user page here, that does in fact contain lots of statistical facts from reliable sources that should preferably be referenced within this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links David A (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Your WP:CHERRY and WP:SYN is of no relevance. Again your opinion on something have very little weight around here. Please used reliable and relevant sources instead. Crime is often used in Sweden-bashing so it's relevant to provide a context. // Liftarn (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, your personally created page provides no statistical facts, and strictly uses opinion columns as references. It has no relevance whatsoever for a far more fact-oriented information page. David A (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, given that you categorically do not even attempt to find any statistics or other facts whatsoever to support your claims, you are the last person in the world to have the right to call anybody else slanted simply for using such sources instead of blindsided ideology. David A (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

And please debunk every single one of my references before you sweepingly call them unreliable. Several of them are from official statistics institutions and some of your favourite newspapers. David A (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is on you. And don't try to sidetrack the discussion to be about something else. // Liftarn (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

What makes me angry about you, and others like you, is that you consistently use pure opinion pieces for your claims, argue for why this is fine, and then categorically dismiss statistics from reliable sources as if they were inferior in the next breath. It is extremely insincere, fact-resistant, and hostile to any informed discussion whatsoever. Everything has been reduced to rhetorics and ideology instead of careful informed analysis. It is like talking with a global warming denier. And if you are not willing to provide any examples for why most of my sources are supposedly unreliable, your entire argument fails automatically. David A (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you have a major problem with understanding that Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. That you claim reliable sources are "opinion pieces" just because you disagree with the facts presented in them is a problem. Another problem is your whataboutism. You dump a large number of URLs that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. i have no idea why you do that, but it don't help your case. // Liftarn (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources that I posted are mostly very reliable and based on statistical information, which is the entire point of this article. My linked list of references is relevant because it directly details a lot of information about the crime situation in Sweden, whereas your link simply mentions that any and all criticism is automatically just a part of one ideological political narrative among many, that anybody can freely pick and choose from with no connection to what is or isn't a part of actual reality.

Basically, your article is filled with pure opinions, as is your usual modus operandi, whereas mine shows that much of the criticism towards Sweden is firmly rooted in reality. It is a facts versus fiction situation, and this particular article should be rooted in the former rather than the latter. David A (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you may think your feelings are more important than sources, but it's not so on Wikipedia. An example, https://www.ica.se/recept/enkel-appelpaj-1092/ may be a reliable source for that apple pie contains apples. It is however totally irrelevant when discussing the height of Mount Everest. It don't matter how reliable it is, if it says nothing about Mount Everest it's of no use. // Liftarn (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Your are outright lying about the context now, and I am increasingly starting to perceive you as a manipulative insincere individual in general. My 100 or so references have nothing to do with feelings. They have everything to do with statistical facts, whereas you have not produced any of them, and are strictly blatantly trolling me in order to waste my time and tick me off. David A (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm trying (for quite some time now) to learn you how Wikipedia works. If you want the article to say something you need to have reliable sources for it. As your URLs says nothing about Sweden-bashing they can not be used to say anything on that subject. Just as a recepie for apple pie may not be used to say anything about Mount Everest. It's quite simple really. // Liftarn (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The references have everything to do with the crime situation in Sweden, and the opinion pieces in Sweden-bashing has nothing to do with the statistical facts presented in this page. David A (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It is under "See also", but it can also be worked into the article text. And they are still not opinion pieces. // Liftarn (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the two of us evidently cannot properly communicate with each other, I have requested mediation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Nyheter_Idag David A (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is most definitely Sweden-bashing. The article talks about American politicians talking about Sweden’s crime rate without mentioning the large differences of crime rate in Europe, Sweden, and the United States. I feel the article tries to push a view that Sweden is a violent wasteland when America has a intentional homicide rate almost 5 times the rate of Sweden (https://dataunodc.un.org/GSH_app) . I don’t actually know how to amend this article. Dogblock (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Comparisons to the United States are irrelevant, as Sweden and the US are rather different in terms of size, economy, system of government, policing etcetera. Traditionally Sweden is primarily compared to other Nordic countries. If other comparisons are made, they are mostly sourced to Swedish researchers such as the one who compared the usage of hand grenades by crime gangs to violence in Mexico. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sweden-bashing

Another Wikipedia member mentioned the Anti-Sweden slant of the article, and I have to agree that this article provide a lot of sources, but it fails to provide a comparison between Sweden and the nations that are being mentioned. If politicians in the US and UK are mentioned, then their claims should also have evidence next to them. I feel that this article is just a bunch of quotes, rather than actual links to UN and other sources of reliable data. Dogblock (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

US politicians aren't experts on crime levels in Sweden and their comments do not belong in this article. This article could feature Swedish politicians. This article's statistics is mostly based on Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention data. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this article goes easy on the reality of Sweden. I have family who did internal investigation within the police, undercover work, and lots of similar stuff. Truth is that there's a lot of corruption, and most of it is covered up by high ranking members of government. There are straight up terrorists who work as police officers in Sweden, and they are highly organised.

Recent edits - January 2020

An IP editor has made two edits to add what I view as WP:SYNTH material to the article, apparently highlighting rape statistics and trying to tie them to immigrants. The sources used are cherry picked and generally not RS. Gatestone Institute is a far-right think tank and Herland Report is the blog of Hanne Nabintu Herland. Zero Hedge is generally not a reliable source either. If we are to make changes, they must have good sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like an editor with an agenda, and I agree with the above. That said, the IP editor has a point in that the article needs updating with information from the newest Swedish Crime Survey from 2019 [1]. Right now, unfortunately I don't have the energy to make a major rewrite of the article, which is what it would be to change every part that is sourced to the 2013 or 2014 SCS. Sjö (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel we should be relying so heavily on the SCS at all. Obviously the most recent one is better than older ones, but it's still a WP:PRIMARY source, which makes it completely unacceptable to present it in a way that encourages the reader to reach a particular conclusion (and by my reading many of the cites to it here are being used that way.) We should find reliable, high-quality secondary sources covering and interpreting what it says instead, and remove anything that we can't find secondary coverage for. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. We do need to update, but secondary coverage is key. It that same issue we have with NIBRS and the UCR in the US; the numbers never "speak for themselves", we interpret them. And I admit I have a bias in that this (criminology and crime data) is one of my areas of "expertise", so if I'm being too extra, give me a trouting. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not all of the sources added by the IP address seem unreliable. This one was probably fine for example: "Figures released in 2018 found that 58% of convicted rapists and 85% of all convicted assault rapists in Sweden are migrants to Europe. " David A (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Here would be the best and most up-to-date source available: [2] A large literature review of Nordic research on immigration and crime from 2005 to 2019 compiled by Brå. It's in Swedish. According to its findings, people born in a foreign country are heavily over-represented in serious crime and 2nd generation immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than 1st generation. --Pudeo (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pudeo: That would be akin to the USA's Bureau of Justice Statistics, right? If so, that's still primary sourcing in my opinion. It's not bad, but generally it produces descriptive statistics and review of trends of official data, right? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

See my comment in the section below, this WP:PRIMARY discussion is now held at two places. But I don't know, Congressional Research Service might also be a good comparision. --Pudeo (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Pudeo that this is a good source. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead has a WP:RECENTISM problem.

The lead seems to devote far too much focus to relatively recent statistics - a focus that is not present in the sources (which repeatedly warn against trying to draw dramatic conclusions from raw crime statistics, eg. Criminal statistics do not reflect the actual level of crime in a country, since these are influenced by legal factors and the extent to which crime is reported and how crimes are registered and But a criminology expert has warned The Local that reaching conclusions by analyzing figures for reported crimes is a tricky business. “Reported crimes are a lousy measure of the development of crimes. The number of crimes reported tends to be dependent on the discussion going on in the country,” University of Stockholm criminology professor Jerzy Sarnecki said. We should tone down the heavy focus on point-by-point recent figures and focus more on overarching long-term coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarnecki is himself a controversial academic and is "known for the opposite of exaggerating crime in Sweden" according to Forskning & Framsteg. Picking a single academic at the expense of others will not create a good article. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the lede is good as-is on this front; WP:RECENTISM is about things like "documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens." The lede discusses a trend over many years. The only way to get much less recent is to go back into the last millenium; something no longer of relevance to readers except in a history section. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Over-reliance on the Swedish Crime Survey

The Swedish Crime Survey is a WP:PRIMARY source, and as such we need to be very cautious about using it - it shouldn't be used in ways that encourage the reader towards a particular interpretation (and in my opinion almost all usage of it in the article is at risk for that.) It particularly can't be used in the lead - we either need to find reliable secondary sources interpreting it, and base our coverage on those, or we need to remove the stuff cited to it entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with this. The survey is done with scientific methods and although Brå is a government agency, it is a research instutition. Brå has a scientific council [3]. Perhaps a good illustration would be that a similar government agency in Finland was directly merged to the University of Helsinki. A police statistics would be a primary source, a survey/study by a research agency not. --Pudeo (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Are even police statistics primary, though? Wouldn't primary sources be like using the opinions of convicted criminals or crime victims in the lead section? A Thousand Words (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Pudeo that it is a research institution and thus, although from a government, should be used as normal. Perhaps it can be mentioned that it is funded by the Swedish government. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to the Swedish Crime Survey, the number of sex crimes against women increased to 396% from 2012 to 2017 if I remember correctly. That should at least be relevant to mention. David A (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The "396% increase" is the number of reported robberies against convenience stores during the period 1975-2008, not adjusted for population increase or disposition to report such crimes, no? Also note that those years are cherry-picked because 1975 was an outlier with lower than usual number of robberies (203) and 2008 was an outlier in higher than usual number of robberies (1007). If we compare 1977 to 2006 it is instead a ~101% percent increase (once again not taking into account population increase or disposition to report such crimes). In 2018 that number was down to 515 reported robberies. That's the only corresponding number I can find in BRÅ's reports, no such number for sex crimes. Do you have any specific link to a specific BRÅ report? I would very much like to see it. NiklasBr (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely hate sentences like "This crime increased/decreased by X% between the years 20## and 20##". At best it's original research and at worst it's used for synthesis. If you cherrypick years, crime and your source of information you can have that piece of statistic show either an increase or a decrease in criminality, according to what you want to prove. Crime rates go up and down for a whole lot of reasons, and it's nearly always possible to find two points on a crime rate curve that will give you the result that you want. Sjö (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I received the result from the previous version of this page: https://bra.se/statistik/statistiska-undersokningar/nationella-trygghetsundersokningen.html

The numbers for the previous survey from 2018 said that 2.7% of all women in Sweden were subjected to sex crimes in 2012 and 10.7% in 2017. The latter divided by the former makes roughly 3.96. 2012 was picked because the numbers had been relatively stable for a few years until then, and there were only 2.2% subjected to sex crimes in 2011, if I remember correctly. David A (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's talk math for a short moment :) If I invest 100 SEK in a bank account and a few years later my balance is 396 kronor, my investment has not increased 396%, it has increased 296%. Do you understand the difference? Anything which increases/decreases starts at a baseline from which it changes. The base line in your example is 2,7% (equivalent to my 100 SEK). You use the difference to calculate the change: The change on my bank account is 296 kronor, the change on your numbers is 8 percentage points.

Back to the numbers, please note the following passage from Appendix 12 page 102 in the Technical Analysis (NTU 2018) on the numbers you use, the time series is not internally consistent and when the new method was introduced the chapter on sexual crimes changed significantly, year-over-year comparisons should be avoided unless done with great caution:

Resultaten för allvarlig misshandel och allvarligt sexualbrott har inte räknats om eftersom de, trots omräkning, inte anses vara jämförbara med resultat från undersökningar med den nya metoden. Anledningen är att frågorna om utsatthet för allvarlig misshandel respektive allvarligt sexual-brott tidigare, innan metodbytet, ställdes i en uppföljningsintervju medan de frågorna efter metodbytet ingår i screeningen. NiklasBr (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NiklasBr is correct here. Governmental crime tracking agencies typically caution against comparisons between crimes and across years. The problem is that raw data alone can be misleading, as I could legitimately say both "violent crime has decreased 50% over the past 25 years" and "violent crime has increased 5% over the past 5 years". And did you know that "US government data show that rape increased 32% from 2012 to 2013". If we are going to say anything about data trends, it's best if we quote researchers. If we cannot, then we need to choose our words carefully and talk about general trends without specifying years (lest we cherry pick). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a clarification that I said "increased to 396%" not "increased with 396%". Also, as far as I recall, the changes in the system were for the survey year 2019, not for the 2018 version, which was the year I used as a reference. Also, all that is said in the quoted text is that the counting method for serious sex crimes had changed, not the one for sex crimes overall. In any case, it is certainly worth noting that the frequency has increased to almost 4 times the previous amount in such a brief period of time. David A (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned no base level to increase from. It was assumed that the base level was the starting year because of that omission. I can accept that. However, a couple of follow-up questions are required:

1. "Increased to 396%" of what? What are you considering the "100% baseline" to compare against? And why specifically?

2. Have you considered new/changed laws during the reported period? E.g. rape within a marriage was not properly outlawed until the sixties.

3. have you considered cultural changes such as what constitutes a sex crime, when I went to school aeons ago, it was generally not considered a sex crime if a teenage boy would lift the skirt of a girl to have a peek, but now it is. Or revenge porn, it was virtually unheard (and its impact possibly lesser) of prior to the widespread use of the modern internet.

4. What about propensity to report on such issues, has that been considered for?

5. Significant changes in methodology to collect answers (as mentioned above) should be considered, as flagged by the authors themselves.

You have an affinity for dumping lots and lots of cherry-picked numbers, some may be correct but they are often significantly misrepresented, some even false, or plain opinion pieces (e.g. see the archived version of this page). You are doing everyone a disfavour by acting the way you do and it has appearance of a pattern and an agenda when you keep on doing things like this. NiklasBr (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, I picked 2012 because there was a significant spike right afterwards, and I sincerely doubt that the propensity to personally consider offenses as sex crimes went up by as much as 4 times under a 5 year period right afterwards. This is such an enormous change that it is significant to report.

Regarding my motivations, I am exactly what I have always said that I am, an autistic shut-in who is obsessed with statistics, have read a lot of them, and have turned worried as a result. I have listed my main viewpoints in my user page if you are interested. See here for examples of statistics that I have read, in case you are willing to reevaluate your previous viewpoints: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] [15][16][17][18]

Anyway, most people editing political pages in Wikipedia have a bias, including yourself, in fact all humans inherently have a bias. What is relevant is if their views are based on facts or ideology. In my case, I have mixed viewpoints from all over the political spectrum, and try to stick to the former option as much as possible. David A (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

NiklasBr you are required to WP:AGF assume good faith, you can't invalidate arguments in this discussion with past behaviour. David A has backed up his arguments with sources so far. A Thousand Words (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. Feel free to read through the references that I linked to in my last post, and insert the ones that you think seem useful for Wikipedia, if you wish. David A (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)