Talk:We Are Sthlm sexual assaults

Article title

• User:The Almightey Drill, Oops. I created 2015 Swedish music festival sexual assaults, I need to merge it into this article. But I thought you might want to take a moment to consider what the best name for an article is. I may not get around to doing the merge for a day or two. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Merged, 2015 Swedish music festival sexual assaults redirects here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the article to focus it on the actual since this is about an event, not merely media reports. So basically the same reason that New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany isn't called New Year's Eve scandal in Germany. I dispensed with the year since it seems to be relevant to at least two years, and the title is still unambiguous.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Swedish sources

Note that Sveriges Radio reported on sexual harassment at We Are Sthlm on August 12 2015.[1] Aftonbladet has a very thorough article on what has been reported so far.[2] Both sources are in Swedish.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

2011 image

Although we explicitly say it is 2011, does it meet WP:BLP to have this image? Nobody in the crowd has their face showing, but it is likely that their social circles would identify them, and this is the kind of article nobody wants to be shown in (only any criminal if found guilty should be) '''tAD''' (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

More to the point, the image is simply not relevant to the article. The attacks didn't happen at the 2011 festival. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind removing it. I used it to replace the previous image, File:Kungsträdgården 20090712.jpg, which pictured completely random tourists and people whose faces are partially visible.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article needs some serious scrutiny in terms of neutrality. It relies too heavily on "alternative media" like Nyheter Idag and a handful of international sources that merely summarize select articles in Swedish media. There is a very heated, ongoing debate about this issue in Swedish media that needs to be taken into account. The criticism of Dagens Nyheter is being heavily scrutinized since much of it comes from sources that are openly critical to the current immigration policies. There's also a lot of journalists and commentators pointing out that Swedish media has been reporting on sexual assaults and rapes at festivals for years, but that this has never resulted in any widespread outrage. The controversy here is clearly about views on immigration (and immigrants), but it's also about sexual abuse against women in general. The article has clearly been written from an anti-immigrant perspective without regard for any other views.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not "rely heavily" on alternative media. In fact, the only place where alternative media is referred is when it comes to the date of an article about the discussed subject. You cannot say that the date of publishing is a disputable fact, especially as Google confirms the date of the article (of Nyheter Idag). Journalisten, which is published by the Norwegian Journalist Union and is thus by generally accepted definition neutral, has done its own research on the topic. The result of that research (which, again, was conducted by a neutral source which has absolutely nothing to do with "anti-immigrant" opinion) is that DN knew about the assaults just after they happened, and had no good reason to wait six months with publishing of the related story.

Rekinski (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is clearly slanted towards the perspective of Nyheter Idag and their criticism of Dagens Nyheter. Their version of events is described regard to any other sources, including the article by Wierup in Dagens Nyheter published on January 9. It's all written from the assumption that a conspiratorial coverup is an established, uncontroversial fact. Sources have clearly been chosen to fit this narrative, including the unexpected inclusion of Norwegian Journalisten. Major Swedish media sources are merely used to back up the findings by Journalisten even though they are far more notable. The choice of a fairly obscure Norwegian-language source to bolster the argument for a coverup is a dead giveaway that Swedish-language sources could not pose a significant language barrier. Anyone without previous of Swedish media should be take more care in choosing their choices.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, isn't it quite reasonable that the source that apparently was first to publish an article on the subject is the one that has most influence? After all, what Nyheter Idag wrote is essentially what DN wrote the next day, with the difference that DN blamed the police instead of themselves. Then of course, if DN would have been first, I would completely agree with you. The previous version of this wikipedia article gave the impression that DN had exposed the whole story themselves, which is demonstrably and utterly wrong. Furthermore, a statement from DN was used as proof for their innocence, which, at best, is a schoolbook example of how to not use sources. In the present form, the whole chronology of events is presented to the reader, without overstating the importane of Nyheter Idag. If someone has more sources to add to this, then be my guest. But excluding what's written now is nothing else than political censorship. Regarding Journalisten, yes, it may be obscure in the sense that it's not as big as DN is, but they obviously are a serious actor, and they did their homework by checking all the sources on both sides. However, I'm not sure what you mean with the language barrier thing? Do you mean that swedish readers are unable to verify the article because it's written in Norwegian? Well, there are people that have had it translated: http://www.tino.us/2016/01/nya-avlsojanden-i-wolodarskiaffaren/

Rekinski (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to read WP:Original research, especially the part about synthesis. Wikipedia articles about events are supposed to summarize sources, not to draw conclusions about the facts themselves. Self-published sources are not considered to be reliable, and relevant sources need to be balanced against other relevant sources to achieve neutrality.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I get some of your points. Even though I'm still not seeing the mentioning of Nyheter Idag's article as a problem. The reason is that, as I said before, Nyheter Idag published an article with essentially the same content as DN did, but they did it before DN (and thus DN didn't break the story). This fact (that they were first) should in itself give them credibility and make them relevant in this particular case (would not cite them under different circumstances). However, I will see if I can find anything to change/improve based on your other view points.

Rekinski (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think you could tell me what part of the reasoning in the paragraphs in question is in conflict with the guidelines that you made me read? I may be biased, but I fail to find any clear violations...

Rekinski (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I had issues with this as soon as the article went up, there were constant additions of hulking big tranches of the Norwegian journalists' findings presented as fact. I tried to sum them up as one line in the reactions (what they deserve, it's a foreign watchdog, not the law of the land) but now I see it's crept back again '''tAD''' (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability and verifiability

As even the article itself claims the "We are Sthlm sexual assaults allegedly took place" and incidents of sexual harrassment happen at every larger music festival, I have my doubts that this article meets the criteria for notability and verifiability, at least under its current headline.

A suggestion for improvement could be "Alleged We are Sthlm sexual assaults media hoax" or something to that effect. It can still be mentioned that there were incidents of a sexual nature at the festival, but the notability, if any, comes from the media hoax about a cover-up of something out of the ordinary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.4.248 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment, on: Does this page meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia?

Should we preserve this article? If so: under which conditions? Corriebertus (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this article, I believe, is not what Wikipedia wants to be. I take it from its lead section that this article is not about facts of sexual assaults, but about hypothetical facts that have been alleged. The lead does not tell who has or have been alleging those (hypoth.) facts, which suggests that those allegators are unknown or not worth mentioning. Another word for allegated facts with the source of the allegations being obscure is: rumours.
I'm not saying that every rumour is necessarily always false or untrue, I'm contending that Wikipedia is not, or should not be, spreading rumours.
Wikipedia wants to be a reliable institution. In that case, an article's title suggesting some fact should swiftly be justified in the article by reliable sources proving the fact suggested in its title. This is not fulfilled in this article's lead section – on the contrary: the lead clearly suggests that there is no fact (just allegations).
Therefore, to protect the reliability of Wikipedia, I propose to leave the protagonists and creators of this article two choices: (a) Reorganize the article so that the lead immediately makes clear in what way the factualness suggested in its title is proven or made credible by which reliable sources; (b) Change the article's title in such a way that it makes clear that the article does not bear on factual sexual assaults but on something else: a rumour, a theory, or whatever, and makes clear who is rumouring or theorizing it.
If defenders of this article can't make it comply with either of those choices (a) or (b), I believe we'll have to remove the article from Wikipedia where it now appears as a mere rumour presented as if it were a fact. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• No comment on the article, but, if you want it to be deleted, you should list it at Articles for deletion, rather than starting an RFC here. Wham2001 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)