Talk:2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Sweden (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2nd AFD[edit]

@TheGracefulSlick: with a reminder to properly add the 2nd AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson) to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

ISIS involvement[edit]

Having read through the sources and what I could find in Swedish, especially local Swedish media: The suspected perpetrator was not found guilty in court. It was not considered to be an act of terrorism. There was no evidence, according to the court, that this was an ISIS arson, though the prosecutor claimed so. It could be. The evidence has been tested in court and found wanting. If we're even to have this article, we should change the name. /Julle (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson. /Julle (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This isn't to say it couldn't be an ISIS attack, of course. Just that the sources and evidence don't support us stating so in the title. /Julle (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree about the inapt title. I am copying here the most important part of the discussion referred to above:
Would an uninvolved editor please .... verify whether this source, and the others used does indeed confirm that .... "the subsequent arrest of an Amaq News Agency operative in Germany demonstrated that the attack was directed by the Islamic State" . The edit has BLP implications in that it effectively states that a person is guilty, whom a Swedish court has found innocent and a person in Germany is guilty who has not yet been tried.
I claim that the three sources state that somebody has been arrested in Germany for acting as 'reporter' on behalf of Isis, not as their 'director' and at the moment even this marginal involvement is an allegation, not a fact. The German arrest is included in the article as an allegation of 'reporting', as it should be. Pincrete (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Other sources used in article:Independent … … International Business Times
The NYT source does not support that the attack was directed by ISIS, nor does it clearly say that Mohammed G was in contact with the arsonist before the deed. It does support that Mohammed G was in contact with him after the fact. I haven't read the other two sorces yet.Sjö (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I moved the article to a new name. I think this is the better solution no matter who's behind it, honestly. It's less surprising – as someone living in Malmö, I didn't even understand what "2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson" was supposed to refer to, even though this made headlines when it happened. It explains what happened, not which group it's potentially related to. /Julle (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory, there are three sources that describe the recently arrested Isis 'reporter' in Germany, one of them is ambiguous as to whether it is only AFTER the arson, the other two are quite clear that it is after, with no ambiguity. None of them states clearly any contact before. The original police statement can be got to from the NYT, that is also quite clear that the person is currently accused only of contact after. Two other editors above agree with my analysis on this, none have supported your interpretation.
In spite of having had this pointed out to you half a dozen times already, today you inserted this text "In June 2017, an "ISIS propagandist" was arrested in Germany, accused of both having been in touch with the suspected arsonist before the crime and of ...." .
You do realise that you are de facto accusing two identifiable living people of crimes, which no court or police has yet accused the German one of (complicity in arson/terrorism), and which a Swedish court, (which had the evidence of contact presented to it), has found the accused innocent of. You are repeatedly doing it despite several editors on this page and at the AfD, pointing out this is not in the sources. Go to WP:RSN if you believe we are misreading these sources. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The statement from the office of the German Federal Attorney General [1] says quite plainly that Mohammad G. had been in touch with the unnamed ISIS sympathizer in Malmo, but wanted or awaited confirmation that he had gone through with the attack before posting it on Amaq. Then we have the New York Times article confirming my translation:


  • "In most of its claims of responsibility, Amaq attributes the information to 'a security source.'For example, after three Islamic State followers carried out a van and knife attack in London on Saturday night, Amaq sent out this statement a little more than 24 hours later: 'Security source to the Amaq Agency: A detachment of Islamic State fighters carried out the London attack yesterday.'
  • Analysts have been puzzled by this reference to so-called sources, with many casting doubt that the terrorist group’s media operatives had any actual contacts, and suspected that Amaq was instead waiting for the mainstream new media to announce whether the assailant was Muslim.
  • The statement from the prosecutor explains that Mohammad G. had been communicating via social media with a man who went on to carry out a 2016 arson in Sweden.
  • Mohammad G. contacted his source after the attack to confirm details of what had happened, according to the statement. 'One day after this attack, the accused demanded from his contact person (in Sweden) a personal claim of this deed,” the prosecutor’s office said."- end -
  • Got that? The two "had been communicating," the arsonist was Mohammad G.'s "source", his "contact person" they were in contact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The Independent's translation of the statement by the Federal Prosecutor's office:
  • "Specifically, Mohammed G had been in contact with a person who committed an arson attack on a Shia community centre in Sweden on 11 October, by mid-September at the latest. One day after the attack, the accused demanded a personal claim of responsibility from his contact person." E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, on this occasion you are right, I misread the timeline. Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Clarification What I am apologising for is that NYT does state that the 'German accused' was in contact with the Swedish accused before the attack. It isn't clear where NYT got this info from, since the German police statement says:
"The accused Mohammed G. is strongly suspected of being a member of the foreign terrorist organization "Islamic State" (IS). In the arrest warrant, the accused is essentially accused of the following facts: The accused traveled to Germany in early September 2015. He arrived here as a contact person between the news agency A'MAQ attributable to the "IS" and potential terrorist terrorists. Specifically, Mohammed G. had been in contact with a person who had committed a fire attack on a Shiite community center in Sweden on October 11, One day after the attack, the accused demanded a personal acknowledgment of their action from his contact person. The reason for this was that A'MAQ did not want to publish a report on the attack without such evidence. Subsequently the "IS" in the newspaper "al Naba" published by him confessed to the attack. In addition, the accused operates on the Internet in various chat groups propaganda for the "IS".
I still maintain that "ISIS directed" and 'a second trial' of the Swedish accused is not supported by any source. Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera[edit]

Re our text: According to Al Jazeera, this attack was one of series of attacks on Shia mosques worldwide, including an ISIS-inspired attack on a Shia mosque on the outskirts of Stockholm in May 2017.

What the source says about 'Malmo' is: It (ISIS) claimed responsibility for a fire last year at a small Shia mosque in southern Sweden's Malmo. ..... Nothing about the Al Jazeera source suggest that ISIS did any more than claim responsibility for Malmo. Pincrete (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV editing[edit]

Editors interested in an accurate, NPOV article, should check this revision [2]. I have better uses for my time toan to devote it to an endless struggle with the POV editors on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't address ANY of the OR, PoV or Synth issues raised above and at AfD by several editors. What stupendous arrogance and indifference to NPOV and BLP makes you imagine that you know better than a Swedish court whether this was terrorism and whether the person tried was guilty or not. The court said it was not terrorism but arson and that no evidence was offered that the accused individual committed that arson. E.M.Gregory you clearly have divining powers not available to Swedish courts or sources. Pincrete (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Other arson incidents on mosques in Sweden Suggestion[edit]

I suggest other arson incidents on mosques in Sweden be added to this article. Three other attacks that occurred before this attack were already causing tension in Sweden - Tensions Simmer in Sweden with Third Mosque Arson in Past Eight days.comment added by User:Level C.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea but the title would have to include "community centers and asylum centers" 'cause it's not just mosques asylum centers (per Reuters), community centers, per Snopes andrefugee shelter). the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
And this recent article says "18 fires", "No End in Sight for Arson on Sweden Refugee Centers" the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I do think attacks on Mosques should be kept separate form attacks on other Muslim communal facilities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I also think asylum/refugee centers are different from and and should be listed separately from Muslim communal institutions, such as community centers. This, to make certain that we separate anti-immigration or anti-immigrant attacks from anti-Islam/anti-Muslim attacks. I created Arson attacks on asylum centres in Sweden because it was clearly needed. But I see no reason not to have 3 articles about the these 3 kinds of institutions now subject to arson attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ami Horowitz claims[edit]

Firstly, Horowitz is not anywhere in the source "speaking about this event" (Malmo), secondly, most interviewees and film crew have said the film was 'faked'. Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I watched the video of Ami Horowitz on Fox news and in the article re: the interview, he clarifies that he was speaking about this Malmo Muslim community centre arson. He added about the huge price countries pay when they welcome immigrants. Sweden has a history / a social issue; many arsons in this particular community, this being one of them. See "See also". the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The Salon article does talk about this incident, because Horowitz, does. He's sort of an opposite but lesser Michael Moore; you can't trust either of them on facts, but both are notable and we can certainly cite such notable POV filmmakers for the things they say. Pin, you should have watched th evideo, or read the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I think so too, The Salon article says "Horowitz has now said he was actually talking about an arson attack in October in Malmö that caused smoke damage to a Shiite Muslim community center. But although ISIS claimed a connection to the crime, Sweden doesn’t consider it an attack of terrorism. Horowitz disagreed: “That was a pretty clear act of terrorism.” " the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
That does not address the issue that almost everybody involved says the video was 'faked' by dishonest editing and therefore his opinion is of extremely questionable worth. If included, the 'doubts' expressed about the honesty of the video would need to be included also, but I don't think it's worth that. The opinion of a single minor journalist with no Swedish expertise does not carry much weight, even without the doubts about the video and channel. I must have missed the mention of Malmo somehow.Pincrete (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Does it not occur to either of you, or Horowitz, that Swedish judges might have a better idea as to what is/is not terrorism under Swedish law than any of you, especially as they heard the evidence rather than watched Fox. You or Horowitz can think whatever you want. Pincrete (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand Snopes disproved Horowitz claim re: no-go zones but not re: tension in the community and arson. the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Why should anyone care about what an unknown investment banker turned satirical film maker living 12000 miles away thinks? If he really were M Moore, it wouldn't grant much significance and M Moore has earned a reputation 1000 times bigger than this guy . If the guy had some expertise on Sweden or terrorism he might be credible, but is even someone as marginal as him REALLY claiming that a minor incident which caused some smoke damage has caused significant community tension in Sweden? Why no Swedish or European sources? (The broader influx of refugees perhaps has caused some problems, but this article is about Malmo, not refugees in Sweden).
I'm afraid when a reporter fabricates the most important parts of his story, nobody cares less about whatever is left. The NYT several times, and many European sources seemed to think that Sweden was more offended by being used for 'fake news' than it was by this failed arson attempt. As one of the pieces points out, murder rates in the US are at least 5 times those in Sweden. Perhaps that's why the Swedes aren't inclined to take advice from Horowitz or Fox. Pincrete (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Level C: I appreciate your new interest in terror-related incidents; I assume you found this page after interacting with Gregory and I. But if you're going to edit this page -- and this should apply to any subject -- you need to use the sources for what they say. I watched the Fox interview, twice, and at no point did Horowitz reference the Malmo arson. Although he did mention it in the Salon article, he did not say the statements you quoted him for. That is WP:SYNTH and just plain dishonesty. As for the NPR source, the piece discussed Malmo as a whole but nowhere does it refer to the arson, making more SYNTH. Please be more careful in the future. There are already enough problems with these types of articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no no no no. :) I wasn't quoting him, I was paraphrasing him. I used single quotes. Horowitz said "The reality is that there is a massive social cost to Sweden’s lovely humanitarian gesture." I paraphrased him with "Speaking about this event, filmmaker Ami Horowitz, said that 'countries that welcome immigrants pay a huge price for it'." I said "speaking about this event" because Horowitz says he was speaking about this event, in the Salon article.

With regards to me SYNTHESIZING, I disagree.

Here's my line of thinking. The NPR article says "Sweden's Immigrant Influx Unleashes A Backlash" and talks about arson, written on before February 5, 2015. says i.e. "Two policemen stand outside a mosque in Uppsala, Sweden, last month. The mosque was firebombed on Jan. 1 in one of three arson attacks targeting the Muslim community in Sweden since Christmas Day." and mentions "three mosques were firebombed in a month". I know the NPR article is not speaking of THIS particular arson in Malmo since it was written before this event even happened.

However, this wiki article about a fire in Malmo in October of 2016, is one of many- addressing arson in Malmo. That's right! So the paragraph I wrote discussing the 'social costs', with the NPR article talking about backlash and discussing tension in Malmo is to explain about the relation between the arson and the tensions, backed by Horowitz, and NPR.

Perhaps I could have elaborated a little more in the text I think a way to combine these "arson" articles into three, as Gregory's suggested is a good idea. I agree with your comment about getting back to civil editing. I don't have a new interest in terrorism. I've addressed terrorism articles in the past. Regards, the eloquent peasant (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ami Horowitz's claims are undue in the article; I support their removal. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I concur with keeping Ami Horowitz's comments out of the article. They create too much confusion. the eloquent peasant (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Horowitz has zero credibility as a source AFAI can see, (a single US novice reporter would have little even if he hadn't faked content, even the US sources treat the content as agenda-driven, European sources treat the whole Fox incident with disbelief and contempt). The various sources offered are about the general subject of Swede-refugee tensions, only very peripherally about 'mosque attacks', Malmo, or this event. I cannot see any justification for this content being included here, fails WP:Coatrack, WP:DUE, WP:RS in addition to possible SYNTH. Pincrete (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)