Talk:List of grenade attacks in Sweden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title Discussion[edit]

Shouldn't this page be titled List of IED attacks in Sweden or List of explosive device attacks in Sweden? Many of the attacks listed are not grenades, so it doesn't make sense to call this a "grenade list" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdoodlebop (talk • contribs)

If it's not confirmed as a grenade it should not be on the list. As it is some people add to the list every time a kid throws a firecracker. // Liftarn (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's almost as if Sweden is full of far-right internet activists who are trying to misinform the rest of the world into thinking that we're a migrant flooded warzone.

Definition unclear[edit]

Definition of this list is unclear: what are the different, mentioned items like: "grenade attack", "bombing", "major bombing", "grenade explosions", "attempts"? What is the difference between these? As of now, the list does not meet encyclopedic criteria.--Kulttuurinavigaattori 21:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulttuurinavigaattori (talk • contribs)

It has been nearly a year since the above comment was made by Kulttuurinavigaattori. I was shocked that such a list existed on Wikipedia, then I scrolled down and saw how many items were in it and my shock was balanced, somewhat. Regarding the list does not meet encyclopedic criteria what would the criteria for this list be? It seems that it follows all of the general Wikipedia standards that I know about. As the unsigned section above says, I also think that the title needs to be more generalized. If much time passes with no article updates, I will look into upgrading this page sometime in the far future 134.186.234.108 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list should be renamed "list of attacks using explosives in Sweden", to prevent further reverts such as this one. It is better to provide a comprehensive list of attacks using explosives, drawing the line between handgrenades or IEDs is arbitrary, since the may cause similar amounts of destruction. What do you think, Liftarn? AadaamS (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted as it isn't useful in any way. // Liftarn (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Liftarn useful ... to whom or for what purpose? Usefulness is not a criterion to delete or keep an article as per WP:USEFUL. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and thus it can have a standalone article. What do you think about a rename? AadaamS (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of WP:SALAT. // Liftarn (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you should note as it already says in the lead ("In addition to grenade attacks, there are a significant number of related bomb attacks with improvised explosive devices"), is that many of the sources that describe these events (sometimes in lists) does not make any distinction between grenades/IEDs but have lists based on notable "explosive attacks". The naming of the article should not exclude mentions of comparable explosions with unconfirmed devices, as theses are the subject of lists compiled by the sources themselves. If it's too big of problem there should be a name-change of the article rather than deleting scores of content on arbitrary grounds. User2534 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of grenade attacks, not a list of every time something goes boom. If it's not confirmed as a grenade, it should not be on the list. // Liftarn (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do we reconcile that bombings of the Malmö District Court [1] and of police stations/cars [2][3] (just a few of the ones you've deleted) does not meet your criteria? Another list? User2534 (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it don't fit the criteria (being confirmed as a grenade) it should not be in the article at all. Not everything that happens have to be in Wikipedia. Concentrate on the bigger picture and avoid recentism. For instance I can find a reliable source about some students using firecrackers at school([4]) or in a library in Åmål[5], but that should not go into this article. // Liftarn (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should add a chart to compare how many grenade attacks happened in Sweden, compared to the number of people arguing about a Wikipedia talk-page about it. Seriously though, the article is created already, maybe wait for other countries to have some explosive pages and see what they do. Meanwhile, here are some other semi-related lists:
I am hoping that these other lists might help determine what to do with this grenade article. 134.186.234.108 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF // Liftarn (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the article should be renamed Attacks in Sweden using explosives, as there are many news sources, such an article scope would easily meet WP:GNG. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a fundamentally bad reason to evade writing about explosivs attacks in Sweden. As things are, the consensus is against you, Liftarn. AadaamS (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to file a request to rename and also define what should be included and what should not. // Liftarn (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Liftarn things get really strange when powerful devices that cause significant property damage such as at Malmö District Court are excluded from a list ... where grenade attacks which cause no damage are included. It does not make sense to base the list on the type of explosive used. AadaamS (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is "List of grenade attacks in Sweden" so if it does not fit into that description by for instance not being a grenade or not being in Sweden it should not go into the article. Quite simple really. // Liftarn (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree that semantics should be the most important criterion. AadaamS (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I suggest you put up clear, new criteria and make a suggestion that the article should be renamed to fit those new criteria. // Liftarn (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn For instance Nationellt forensiskt centrum i Linköping seem to discuss explosivämnesundersökningar as an aggregate, rather than trying to present grenade attacks as being fundamentally different: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/granater-och-bangers. How about these criteria:

  • Attack using explosives resulting in property damage or personal injury
  • Attack must be within the borders of Sweden

AadaamS (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of grenade attacks in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West

Daily Wire op-ed[edit]

I saw this article on the topic of grenade attacks in Sweden, but I'm not sure if it belongs on this page. --1.136.106.243 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an op-ed. Is this Joseph Curl notable? // Liftarn (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is? It's merely a review of verifiable facts.

Breitbart as a reliable source[edit]

This article is an interview with retired Chief Superintendent Torsten Elofsson of the Malmo police force. Whether the source is Breitbart or the guardian or CNN or whoever else, this is reliable to this page. --1.136.106.243 (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is not a reliable source. If you disagree you may bring it up at WP:RSN. // Liftarn (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then people should bring it up. Because most of the time they are indeed reliable. 'Not reliable source' is a judgement call and as such should be backed up by facts. What are your facts?

In 2018 the Swedish government has proposed[edit]

In 2018 the Swedish government has proposed

Suggest removing word 'has' as this is no longer present tense.

The Spectator as a reliable source[edit]

I see nothing from The Spectator's wikipedia page to suggest it is an unreliable source. --2001:8003:4023:D900:45A4:C69C:3094:F649 (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an op-ed. It is only usable to document a certain persons personal views. It may be used in the article if the person is notable in the field and not just a random bystander. // Liftarn (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the spectator article is reliable and relevant. It presents another side of the Sweden crime/migrant crisis discussion. --2001:8003:4023:D900:45A4:C69C:3094:F649 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking about that. // Liftarn (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written by journalist Paulina Neuding. Liftarn please help finding better sources, perhaps search for Amir Rostami who is a researcher in the field. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you want to put something in the article it's your job to find reliable sources. I will not do your homework for you. // Liftarn (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times and The Local as reliable sources[edit]

Someone seems to think not.[6] // Liftarn (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have demanded a rather high expectation on the quality of sources, as shown in your other comments, then The Local could not possibly fit your reliability standard. The NYT, too, has its own vested interest and therefore, by your own aforementioned demand for quality sources, it could not be deemed as reliable source. Find a source from a published journal with IF over 20, then will probably unquestionably be a reliable source. 2001:7C0:2900:8050:9D1B:1C7A:AAA6:44B6 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of fallacy numbers?[edit]

Is there any statics/diagram with fallacy numbers? I am surprised that there are so little deadly bombings. --A11w1ss3nd (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the Perpetrators[edit]

Is there a reason why the article says that "Far-right political activists spreading anti-immigrant sentiments have attributed the rise in grenade attacks and crime with the migrant crisis, a claim that has been disputed" when the main article on detonations in Sweden states; "Linda H Straaf head of intelligence at National Operations Department says they are from poor areas and many are second- or third-generation immigrants." as does the BBC article here?

Okama-San (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden&oldid=1206340890"