Talk:Papa Dee

Fair use rationale for Image:Papa Dee - Original Master.jpg

Image:Papa Dee - Original Master.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 87.227.59.31

I would like to remind "Slarre" that Wikipedia is not a fanpage, it has a far more important object than that, wether You wrote the original article or not. It´s a forum for facts. Fact is: Papa Dee was arrested sept 18 2008 charged with assault on his wife with bodily harm. Ref Realtid, DN, PD:s wifes blog a.o.

If You persist deleting this verifiable fact - You will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.59.31 (talk)

You are now reported.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.59.31 (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, specifically the following line: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment".

So far no major Swedish newspaper or other major news sources has published any names on this matter, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to be sensationalist and be the first to publish this kind of information. /Slarre (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What You are saying is that no references are enough to publish a fact You don´t like. Andrea Wahlgren (PD:s wife and the alleged victim) recognizes his arrest in her own blog. I remind You that my note in the article does not claim his guilt, only the fact that he has been arrested. A very central fact in his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.59.31 (talk)

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we should wait to publish any names until at least a few major media outlets or other reliable sources (not blogs etc.) have done so as well. /Slarre (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Slarre that is exactly what You are saying. It´s now an undisputed fact that this Papa Dee character got arrested and then "häktad" by Stockholm district court, my note in the article, was with reference even to the case number at the court, complete with contact details. Still You claim it´s a matter of unreliable sources.... If You are such a fan of this character that it hurts You personally to read unfavorable facts of his life - then that´s Your problem - and nothing that should affect Wikipedias readers right to facts. Again Wikipedia is not a forum for fanclubs....When I search on wiki + arrested there is thousands of hits, most of them even without any references. F.ex. "Mickey Rourke" article says "In 1994 Rourke was arrested for spousal abuse." very similar case the only difference is that this claim is without any reference to the case. Now using Perpetius to do Yr deeds, even blocking me from correcting Yr shortcomings. Typical misuse of power in a forum thought to be the defender of facts, not personal taste and private goals. So Slarre Your credibility is well below zero in this matter.[ (UTC)/Nisken

Are You here now "ditt andefattiga jon"? now You are trying to apply Your twisted version of "swedish rules" on the american/english section of wikipedia. Just the other day You where arguing that there was a difference between the "swedish" part of wiki and the rest of wiki, that explained why You had to remove my facts from the Papa Dee article in swedish. Then You changed the rules when Your arguments where dismantled, to only accept references to swedish major newspapers. Arguing that a courts official decision was not reliable enough as first hand source, this being the "swedish rules" You seem to be one sick guy. So what´s Your argument this time for damaging the article? That the article is available in swedish too? hence under Your control. This is internet a global forum where global rules apply and most people couldn´t care less about Your standards. It´s a verifiable and referenced fact that PD got arrested, its´s a verifiable and referenced fact that he was detained and had his trial. If You don´t accept the official courtdocuments as verification - people in the world outside Your privat duckspond sure doNisken (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been informed above that similar rules applies in this case. Of the sources you've presented, not one is acceptable. From WP:BLP: "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". That takes away two of the sources. The Aftonbladet article doesn't mention any name, and thus is out. Official records are not acceptable as sources, again as per WP:BLP: "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them". As there are no reliable secondary sources, this is out as well.

Andejons (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And who think You are to "inform" others? I´m not using my primary reference to publish any personal facts about PD, merely to authenticate that it´s a fact that he got detained by the court. Learn to read before You speak. The other references are as You state "weaker" and should not be used alone to establish the fact of PD:s detention. Still they have reference value however weaker.Nisken (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For someone asking others to practice their reading skills, yours seems woefully lacking. I again quote: "Do not use [...] trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them".

Andejons (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to stand corrected again and again "du andefattiga jon", the recommendation is ment to prevent from revealing facts by publishing otherwise unreferenced courtmaterial, not as in this case referring to the decision itself not its contents. Hopefully You now stop sabotageing the part of the article I wrote and recognize it as a fact. Sooner or later You will have to, the sooner the better for what little is left of Your credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisken (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy is meant to ensure that unnecessary details of persons' private life are not published. The court order is a source which has not been explicitly referenced, which clearly marks it as an unacceptable source, no matter for what purpose. Since Papa Dee now himself has talked to Expressen about the trial, I've replaced the more lacking sources with that article. I hope this will be the end of this matter.

Andejons (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, the court order is referenced, no detailed material is made available that is not available elsewhere. Your reference to PD:s article is deleted following the BLP directive You Yourself so often reference to and therefore should know the meaning of. Wiki articles is not the forum for discussions (this page is), merely reporting facts. What PD claims is of no importance when the court decision is made, from a wiki perspective. When/if there is an appeal, that should be noted in the article, the innocence debate however is not a wiki article matter.Nisken (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How would "ringa misshandel" be translated into English? "Minor assault"? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Have no idea? But it doesn´t feel all that important, maybe on the same level as that the courts decision was 2/5 (including the chairman) for "the "major assault" conviction - doesn´t feel important enough to write abt does it? More interesting is to see if there is an appeal or not?Nisken (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ehausler" is now totally without references or arguing just plain vandalising this page. I have got warned by administrators not to revert his "work" under the "3R" rule - probably correct, ehausler have been warned too, however he continues with his reverts now of one of the administrators work. I wonder how this will end? Anyone who knows this "ehausler" character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisken (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor was blocked for vandalizing by me. As he agreed to discuss the changes on this page, I unblocked him now. If he resumes instead of discussing, please report him. But I hope that stopped now and we can focus on content building. I am willing to assume that he acted in good faith after he explained his point of view to me. Regards SoWhy 09:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove the section about him got fined?

There has been an edit war on Papa Dee´s page where I have deleted information. I´m not familiar with Wikipedia´s ways of communicating. It´s all about the content to me. Here is the story: Daniel W has been fined for pushing his wife. Is Wikipedia to write about what people have been fined for? You ought to have better things to do. But then if you still think it is of importance then Wikipedia should, in the name of consequence write about what everybody´s been fined for. Is this truly a piece of vital information? Furthermore Wikipedia by means of Nisken implies that he was accused of much more serious crimes. By mentioning the preliminary allegations taken back by the prosecution Wikipedia violates its proper rules of impartiality. It appears as though Wikipedia has an agenda. At least so far it seems like Nisken does. I sincerely hope I´m wrong. Right now the page about Papa Dee serves as desinformation. Leave that up to the tabloids. Wikipedia should do better. Now to the real punishment: Due solely to this incident all of Daniel´s work in Sweden has been cancelled. His work as a performing artist, as a DJ, as a leader for 10 years in radio shows and his TV series as well. He and his wife Andrea can no longer stay in their apartment, let alone in Stockholm. He can´t even take a cab anymore. Abroad at the moment they are now preparing to leave Sweden permanently and move out of the country. The matter has, in every conceivable way been blown completely out of proportion. I appeal to your sense of equity, justice and fairness to not further impede his chances of working abroad. He has been punished enough already. Daniel´s wife Andrea categorically denies that any bodily harm or domestic violence has taken place at any time. Beginning to get the picture? I do not take lightly to domestic abuse. I have personally convinced women to report people whom they´ve been mistreated by. I physically took one of my friends to the police to help her report her ex while he was hanging all around us. I know what control people are like. Daniel has been pretty victimised. And it may even be that some of us have pushed someone at some point.

I urge you to please take out the irrelevant information.

This is a flagrant lie ehausler, the prosecution did never drop their charges on the more serious violence, charges that probably would have earned him jail instead of fines. If they where to have dropped it, the court represented by two of the five members, could not have based their reservation to the majority decision on it. Now two of five members of the court wanted him sentenced for the more grave accusation, three of them decided to only warrant the lesser charge and sentenced him to fines.

Wiki´s article page is NOT the place to discuss guilt, that is done in the courts. Now the court have made the decision.

The only part of your thread I do agree with is that all this comotion is VERY important to his life as an artist and person. That is why it should be noted in his bio to get a better understanding on whats going on. To sabotage an article with the argument of saving the objects career, when he already is convicted does not better wiki at all, on the contrary. It helps PD but lessen the reliability of wiki. I will therefore fight Your edits all the way to the top of wikis admin if necessary. Wiki´s reliability and future is much more important than a convicteds interests of not letting his bio reflect what has passed. I strongly feel I´m protecting wiki in this case - and I can see You are placing PD before wiki. What is irrelevant or not is a matter of discussion, the article is filled with material that seems irrelevant to me and others that don´t have a fan´s view on the article. Nisken (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ehausler (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about him denying the accusations and charges. As Expressen reports he has himself gone public with this story [1], it's even made public by the main newspaper in Norway [2] and in Norway there's really strict rules naming even convicted felons in the daily press. (on grounds that it should be possible to start over again after the sentence has been served). (no:Vær Varsom-plakaten, still no translation to English in wikipedia unhappily, but it's published here: CODE OF ETHICS OF THE NORWEGIAN PRESS by PFU) Nsaa (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request on WP:BLPN#Papa_Dee, so more editors will be aware of this dispute. Nsaa (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I´ve taken away info indicating that he was detained on more serious charges. The charges were quickly dropped by the prosecution. I have added that his wife categorically denies that she´s ever been subject to any abuse.

ehausler (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating this lie ehausler - where on earth did You get that the prosecution dropped their charges on the domestic violence with grave bodily harm at Bellmansgatan. They did nothing of the sort. as stated before, the court were split in their decision two of the court members wanted him convicted on the graver charges. If You have other material to support Your claim I welcome this, to shed new light and perhaps better the article.Nisken (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In response the BLP noticeboard posting of this, I think the whole matter is exactly the classic case where a negativebut well-sourced minor matter unrelated to notability has been added. I think the whole topic should be removed. It has no real relevance to anything important about him. DGG (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A group of people having other interest than better the wiki article from the wiki point of view seems to have come out in force, mind You that wiki governs by its ideal, not a popular vote by some readers of this article. I have no personal interest in PD, but a strong belief in the power of wiki, therefore I see this case as an important case to establish what will govern future writings.Nisken (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Of course I could add more info stating that all evidence is entirely circumstantial and inconclusive. But this is not important information about Papa Dee / Daniel Wahlgren. If this is of interest to Nisken then let him delve with his tabloids at home. Papa Dee has hosted a unique radio show on prime time friday nights for over a decade spending all his money from the programme on buying rare albums that you don´t even get in Sweden, all to provide us with great new music. He´s bought 8000 albums for that show alone from his own pocket. His TV series going around the globe, documenting and recording with local musicians in India, Jamaica, Barcelona and many more, at the same time being an excellent guide making him a household name isn´t even mentioned. I totally agree with DGG. Is the petty comments provided by Nisken really to constitute the type of relevant information Wikipedia wants to represent?

ehausler (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So lets leave this section as it is for now, soon we will know if there is an appeal from either side, and if the prosecutor is behind it and if PD is satisfied with the courts decision or chooses to appeal himself.

So You call the witnesses of the trial "entirely circumstantial and inconclusive"? the court evidently didn´t.

This debate is not really about anybodys guilt, it´s a debate about if a few fans opinion and an object of an article, may decide themselves what should be in that article and if WP:BLP directive is enough as it is to solve these situations.

The good PD has done for his musicfans does not in anyway give him the right to choose what facts should be published and what facts should not.

Feel free to write about his career and other positive sides of PD:s life after all that is predominant in a well written bio, as long as it abide the WP:BLP, don´t forget : Neutrality, Verifiability (and if we should abide Your and andejons rules only major swedish newspapers are ok as references *smile*) and no Original Idea (no personal view´s, speculations or analysis "Being the greatest artist in Sweden" would be unacceptable).

Lastly mind You, nobody is arguing PD:s guilt here - only You and a few fans are arguing his innocense. I merely want facts fulfilling the BPL as it stands right now, ( I was originally happy with "anhållen, häktad, fälld för misshandel" other insisted of more details) published to keep a for wiki´s future very central debate going. Be welcome to the broader forum at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Papa_Dee also check the section on Graham Fitch there, it seems that we are rather restrained after all.....

Nisken (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per Sssoul (talk · contribs) and his/her conversation on my talk page, I agree that this seems to have come to a conclusion. As such, I've closed the discussion and removed the RfC tag. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on "court case"-section

Two editors are in disagreement whether an incident in which the article's subject was subject to a trial and fined needs to be covered in the article. See discussion above. SoWhy 12:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC comments

i don't know Swedish, nor do i know anything about the incident, but to me a] it would definitely not be in line with wikipedia policies & purposes to leave out all mention of the incident; and b] it would read more like a nonjudgemental, nonemotional statement of verifiable facts if it stated what he was charged with and what he was fined for, rather than stating what a court minority "wanted to" sentence him for - something like this:

On [date] he was charged with [exactly what the charges were according to reliable sources, with citations]; on October 20, 2008, he was found guilty of [exactly which charges were upheld] and fined.[with proper citations of course]

if some editor wants to add that "his wife categorically denying that bodily harm or domestic violence had taken place" then a reliable source definitely needs to be given for that. since the incident is so recent, of course further developments might need to be added; meanwhile, if some editors are concerned that the incident currently takes up undue space in such a short article, i suggest they concentrate on adding more information (with reliable sources, of course!) for other aspects of the subject's life and career. again, deleting factual, appropriately-sourced information isn't in line with wikipedia's aims as i understand them, especially WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV; but reporting on what the court "wanted to" convict him of is more tabloidish than encyclopedic. hope that helps some. Sssoul (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion sssoul is more or less what the article contained before "these two concerned" people, started to cut out that material and adding personal views of the defendant instead, followed by an edit war. I would like to see that change - however I´m am NOT going to start that edit war, which will follow. How to proceed?Nisken (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion improves the current text very well. We may add his statement to the press about innocence. Can we work on the text below? A timeline has been reported here [3] (Swedish).Nsaa (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest as a startingpoint open for suggestions: On sept 14 2008 he was arrested and three days later charged with grave assault with bodily harm on his wife. (using "Häktningsbeslut Daniel Wahlgren Sthlms Tingrätt Målnr B12579-08" and "Anklagad, Aftonbladet 20081017" as references) on October 20, 2008, he was found guilty of the lighter assault charge, pushing his wife to a wall, sentenced to fines.[ using: Elfström, Josefine; Rebecka Martikainen (2008-10-20). "Papa Dee dömd för misshandel. Expressen. Archived from the original on 2008-10-23. Retrieved on 2008-10-23. "Daniel Wahlgren knuffade in sin fru Andrea i en stenvägg. I dag dömdes artisten till dagsböter för misshandel utomhus. Däremot frias han av en oenig tingsrätt från misstankarna om misshandel i bostaden." AND Trichen, Robert; Kristina Edblom (2008-10-21). "Papa Dee dömd till dagsböter i dag (English translation: Papa Dee convicted to pay fines) Aftonbladet AND Peter Linné (2008-10-20). Papa Dee dömd för misshandel. Göteborgsposten.]

perhaps these references should be translated into english? But thread lightly then "misshandel" is not "domestic disturbance" as suggested in an earlier translation. This has to be accurate as its important.

Then I agree that some reference to articles where PD and his wife is claiming his innocence would better the article further like perhaps:

Edblom, Kristina; Johannes Heuman (2008-10-17). "”Det är en  mardröm” (english translation: "This is a nightmare")" (in Swedish). Aftonbladet. Archived from the original on 2008-10-23. Retrieved on 2008-10-23. "Men Papa Dee nekar och Andrea har hela tiden hävdat att det inte kan var hennes man som skadade henne."

What is the view of others? Nisken (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the differense between häktningsframställan (this may explain it sv:Häktning, a spesical case for Swedish courts where a person can be detained under different circumstances if I understands it correctly) done the 17 September (Dagen efter händelsen anhålls Wahlgren för två fall av misshandel varav den senare bedöms som grov. Två dagar senare lämnas häktningsframställan in till Stockholms tingsrätt. Artisten sitter sedan frihetsberövad fram till rättegången den 11 oktober. [4]) and åtalas (charged as I translated it) done on 8 October? Nsaa (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky Nsaa...häktning is sort of a prolonged arrest, to give the police time to investigate the suspected crime and who might be held responsible for it and prosecutor time to make his charges for the court based on that investigation. When these charges are presented to thecourt and subsequently to the accused and his legal team, that is when "åtal väcks". This prolonged arrest can only take place as a result of a courtdecision (häktningsdom) if the prosecutor asks for it (häktningsframställan) and the court decides it is nessecary. The court can grant this prolonged arrest on the higher grade of suspicion of the crime presented (and is then more likely to go through and admitted for a longer time) or the lower grade of suspicion (and then less likely to go through and at least for a shorter time), this prolonged time has an end date, at which the prosecutor must do one of three things, release the suspected, make his charges at the court (väcka åtal) or ask for another prolongation of the arrest.

I am not a courtbarrister but had my degree in business law and economy - so there might be flaws in this description, but by and large that is the picture. First the police arrested PD, then they started the investigation, its results led to a "häktningsframställan" to Stockholms Tingsrätt by the prosecutor, the court awarded a "häktningsbeslut", giving the police time to investigate and the prosecutor to prepare en "åtalsframställan", which led to the the day in court, ending in the decision to grant the less grave assault charge and reject the graver assault charge of "åtalet" against PD - the sentence was decided to fines. This court decision is now open for appeal until 10:th of november after which is becomes a legal sentence (domen vinner laga kraft). If appealed before the 10:th, the higher court "Svea Hovrätt" in this case, has to decide if they will allow the appeal (likely in this case) and then if they do, set a courtdate.

Hope this is enough of a description of the process to decide what is the correct translation? Nisken (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How should we translate misshandlat? I've used maltreatment as my Dictionary says so (Norwegian-English), but maybe assault is better? The text below uses both interchangeable. Nsaa (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

hello again; i'm glad if this is making some progress that will satisfy everybody involved. is it okay to make a few comments on formulating it clearly in English?

On 14 September 2008 Wahlgren was arrested; three days later he was charged (Swedish: Häktningbeslut) with grave assault with bodily harm to his wife.[1] [2] On October 8, 2008,[3] he was prosecuted (åtala) with [exactly what the charges were according to reliable sources, with citations]; On 20 October 2008, a Swedish court found him guilty of a lesser charge of assault, pushing his wife to a wall, and he was fined.[4] [5] [6] His wife categorically denied that mistreatment had taken place.[2] [7]

something like that. (it's redundant to say that he was prosecuted - that's obvious from the statement that a court found him guilty of a lesser charge, and "pushing his wife against a wall" simply sounds like more detail than necessary.) hope that helps Sssoul (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I´m ok with that Nsaa. Neutral, no personal views and well referenced. Perhaps the translation dagsböter = "day-fines" should just be fines, and "lesser assault" perhaps "lighter assault" to be consistent with the use of the term elesewhere in the article? Sssoul´s suggestion makes the paragraph lighter and perhaps more readable - however it bypasses some of the legal stages, that might give rise to critisism from readers with legal background?, probably lightweight when compared to the readability. Nisken (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"lighter assault" doesn't sound like English; "lesser charge" is normal legal English for what i understand happened: he was originally charged with one thing but was found guilty of something less serious. as for "day-fines": that term doesn't mean anything in English, and i can't even guess what it means if it doesn't mean simply "fines."

i hope the "other side" in the discussion that led to the RfC is okay with this version? Sssoul (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree now - we must just be consistent and then change the term to "lesser charge" in all the instances in the references as well. However what is the complementing term for "grave assault" which "lighter assault" was used to complement? "Day fines" is a direct translation of the swedish juridical term "dagsböter" a probably socialistic invention to make a fine as heavy on anybody regardless of their income - it´s calculated as a percentage of You´re income rather than a set fine at f.ex. "1.000USD", thereby suggesting to be more "fair". It´s beyond the scope of this article to educate readers abt that so "fine" is fine with me (*smile*) Nisken (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation - i agree that that seems outside the scope of the article, and that "fined" should be fine. 8)

it may be that by "grave assault" you mean "aggravated assault" - but "transplanting" specific legal terminology from one legal system to another may not be a very good idea, so i have mixed feelings about changing that phrase. probably it would make more sense to put the Swedish term for the charges in parentheses - that seems more appropriate than putting the Swedish for "charged", if you see what i mean:

On 14 September 2008 Wahlgren was arrested; three days later he was charged with grave assault with bodily harm to his wife (Swedish: whatever the term is).[1] [2] On 20 October 2008, a Swedish court found him guilty of a lesser charge of assault (Swedish: whatever the term is), and he was fined.[4] [5] [6] His wife categorically denied that mistreatment had taken place.[2] [7]

anyway i hope the guy will move on from this incident and that in a year's time this will just be a minor blip in his life/career. in which case two or three sentences should be plenty, and although getting the sentences right is important, it shouldn't take up *too* much of anyone's time/energy. Sssoul (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Aggravated assault" is the closest term when compared to the US legal system, however "grov misshandel" does not have to use a deadly weapon and ususally ends up with a couple of months to a couple of years in jail, not as in the US 30+ years for aggravated assault, therefore we choose the term "grave" (grov = grave, serious )to mark the seriousness. The next step of "graveness" in the swedish juridical system would be "assault with intention to kill" "dråpförsök" and then "planned assault with intention to kill" "mordförsök" something Wahlgren I´m happy to say, was never suspected for in this case.

Why this has taken so much energy is probably because the people so far opposing writing about this at all - wanted some home made swedish rules applied on this specific case. Much of the discussion was about if there are general omnipotent rules that governs Wiki (as long as they don´t break laws) or if swedish tradition should govern what should be applied when writing about a swedish person, in swedish?, in english?, written by an american in sweden? by an american in the US?

When some of us opposed them they started to edit out the sections they didn´t like - thus starting this edit war. Even if this case is solved (I´ll believe it when I see it) still the general discussion is not taken. Are the rules omnipotent? Who is to interpret "neutrality", "referencing" and "NoPV"? Where to turn for a final ruling when disagreeing on the interperation? Thx for Your time in this and further matters - Nsaa, Sssoul and others Nisken (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation of the differences between "aggravated assault" and "grov misshandel" - that's what i meant above when i said it might not be a good idea to "transplant" specific legal terms. so what i'm suggesting is:

On 14 September 2008 Wahlgren was arrested; three days later he was charged with grave assault (Swedish: grov misshandel) with bodily harm to his wife.[1] [2] On 20 October 2008, a Swedish court found him guilty of a lesser charge of assault (Swedish: whatever the term is - misshandel?), and he was fined.[4] [5] [6] His wife categorically denied that mistreatment had taken place.[2] [7]

as for the larger question of who interprets the wikipedia policies/guidelines: ideally consensus does, and when that's hard to achieve among editors of a given article, then (as you clearly know already!) an RfC is one of the steps available. WP:Dispute resolution outlines some of the other possibilities. Sssoul (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added your proposal (It's not only me ho can change the proposed text :-). He is sentenced by a lower court so I renamed it. And I kept the translation of Charged, so it's more precise. Nsaa (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

my only other suggestions are purely stylistic: wikipedia's manual of style now recommends *not* linking dates - see WP:MOSNUM#Date_autoformatting; and the [[Sweden|Swedish]] links would not be wanted, since that link already exists in the first sentence of the article. the words "Swedish" and "English" need to be capitalized, though! and the tense you need for his wife's denial is "denied", not "denying". i hope it's okay that i've made those adjustments in the "proposed text" box below. Sssoul (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: in "edit mode", you're using a "vertical" style for the citation template - that takes up a lot more space than necessary (especially when you keep fields that you're not actually using, like "doi" and "authorfield"). i'm "collapsing" the first couple to illustrate the space-saving "horizontal" style instead - it's your decision which way to do it, though. Sssoul (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Great changes! Thanks for that. The vertical style make it more readable when you edit, so I'm always using that. But we should remove unused parameters. Nsaa (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me. True that You are not the only one to edit Nsaa, however I don´t want to add to the tension of the controversy in what coud easily be viewed as a "triumphant move", so I rather see that some one else signs the change, is it out of order to ask Sssoul to sign it? representing the governing mechanism, rather than being it a person who can be seen as part of the controversy?Nisken (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

i'm not sure whether or not that request is out of line with the spirit of an RfC - i'm not unwilling to make the change to the article, and the new version seems like it *should* make the "other side" happier than the current version. WP:Consensus states clearly that "silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure" - have the editors who are on the "other side" seen this proposal? and/or is it worthwhile waiting a bit longer to see if any other impartial editors respond to the RfC? Sssoul (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: for what it's worth: investigating the editors' contributions, it looks like DGG, Andejons and Slarre have been active on wikipedia in the last day or two, so they should be aware of this discussion if they're interested in it at all, which means their silence can be interpreted as consent to the proposal; it looks like ehausler (sp?) hasn't been active since october 24th, though. Sssoul (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. No, I don't have anything against the addition now that there are actual sources that can be used to back it up, except for the fact that I still do not think that the court's decision should be used as a source, both since I still believe it would not be in compliance with the requirement in WP:BIO that it has already been referenced elsewhere, and because I don't see the point of including it; it is not more easily accesible than the other sources and I do not think there is anything in the proposed paragraph that relies on it.

Andejons (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks Andejons. i can't tell which of the cited sources you feel should be omitted - can you tell me which number it is?

meanwhile, i've made a few more small changes in a couple of the references - hope they're all okay with everyone. they're meant just to smooth the English, not to alter the meaning at all. Sssoul (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The first one, "Häktningsbeslut...", which is the court's decision to detain him during police investigation.

Andejons (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks, Andejons - are Nsaa and Nisken okay with leaving that source out of it, at least for now? Sssoul (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I´m not happy about it without a concluding discussion of why. Let me expand. This whole disagreement became grave (in my opinion) when he was only detained by the court (häktad) and that was written into PD:s bio. It was claimed that the reference to the courts decision "häktingsbeslut" was not allowed as reference, first because "he was not convicted yet" (my claim was that the fact and its reference was only about his detention, not discussing his guilt at all) secondly "only major swedish newspapers were reliable enough" (my claim was that nothing is better to reference the courts decision than the secretary of the court (who is secondary source and independent of the subject Wahlgren) and her documentation of the decision it self, the reliability and neutrality of this referee is used even if a newspaper writes about it, as there is no other source), thirdly it was then claimed that court documents should not be published for personal integrity reasons (I agree on not publishing the document on wiki, sounds wise - however the reference was NOT a link to the document, only the case number, free to obtain for anybody at the court, (swedish authorities are not allowed to publish documents with personal data on the internet, with some exceptions).

I would therefore like to have the discussion renewed and hopefully concluded here - before deciding on if taking the reference out or not.

Is a court document allowed as reference at all?

If so is it ok to use it as reference to a court decision?

If so even before major newspapers write about the decision?

When these questions are resolved (one way or the other), editors might know what to do next time thus avoiding future edit wars on the same grounds, I´m ready to just as good faith accept the removal of the court reference in this case - still thinking that the "häktning" and its reference is a part of the timeline for better understanding of the trauma the subject of the article, went through at the time, thus important in the bio. My respect to Andejon (which (my respect) has not been on the polite side at all time during this process) for taking part again in this matter - perhaps not vital for PD anymore, but for future similar cases. Nisken (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As Andejons points out the references is not needed directly to back up the given paragraph, but I don't see any rationale for leaving out. It has information about the case number witch may be interesting for future references. If someone have a picture of the case number/"häktingsbeslut" it could be sent to the OTRS (I read the norwegian queue and can handle it if you send it to info-no <at> wikipedia.org). Nsaa (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A picture of the case number? I don´t understand? Pls expand.Nisken (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A photo/scan of the "häktingsbeslut" (you need probably go to an office at Stocholnms Tingsrätt or so, to view the case since it's not published electronically). Nsaa (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a torrent on piratebay of this, that I never downloaded. I called the court instead having them confirming their decision, "who, when, what", I think it´s possible to order the decision from the court directly by fax "Stockholms tingsrätt +46-8-56165000 - enhet 23", but illegal to distribute it over the net according to Swedish law "PUL" (PersonUppgiftsLagen) protecting personal integrity.Nisken (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

um ... again from the perspective of an impartial outsider to all this, this is all starting to sound extremely elaborate for pursuing primary source material that isn't *really* vital as a supporting citation. if i understand Andejon properly, one of his concerns is whether it's really in line with wikipedia's aims & policies - especially WP:BLP - to unearth documentation that's kept out of very easy public reach; reasons like "personal integrity" *are* considered important to WP:BLP, so i think that's a valid point. another important policy is of course WP:Consensus, which usually (if not always) involves compromises. if quoting the news sources is enough to support what the proposed text says, then i would propose sticking to that and leaving the court transcripts (or whatever they are) out of it. if Nisken and Nsaa will agree to that then i would feel ready to put the proposed text in the article. what do you think? Sssoul (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: in terms of the "larger policy questions" that Nisken raised ... WP:Notability specifies that secondary sources are the main wikipedia "standard"; to me a court transcript is a primary source, and newspapers reporting on it are secondary sources; so are legal tomes published at the year's end, but not the proceedings of a very fresh case. and my understanding of WP:V is that in general it *isn't* wikipedia's role to publish stuff before other sources do. Sssoul (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Leave it out then. The Consensus and BLP-rationale is good enough. Nsaa (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks Nsaa - Nisken, if that okay with you as well i'll make the change to the article. probably in the morning, though - it's been a long day and i'm going to sleep now. so ... good night all! Sssoul (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

... and good morning. Nisken? if you also agree to this compromise then i believe we have consensus and the proposed text can be installed in the article. what do you think? Sssoul (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If the agreement is that a court decision is allowed as reference AFTER major newspapers have written about the decision, then it should be OK now in this case?, as that is what has happened *smile* But for the sake of closing this argument I agree on deleting the reference in this specific case, keeping the rest av the proposed notes on the subject. (Sorry for sounding like barrister - seeing possible new grounds for disagreement on this in the future if not being explicit) Now thx for the help with negotiating and claryfying this - happy halloween now - trick or treat?Nisken (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

cool - thanks Nisken. i've made the amendment and i hope it looks good now. as for the larger "policy question", i think each individual instance needs to be considered separately, but again the way i understand WP:Notability and WP:V, wikipedia is meant to rely mainly on secondary sources, not primary sources, so citing the newspapers that are citing the court documents would *generally* be the way to go.

the only other semi-suggestion i have is: is it worth creating separate "Career" and "Private life" sections? the article is currently so short that that might look a bit weird, but the bit about his parents/childhood, as well as this incident, could reasonably go in a "Private life" section; and dividing it up like that might be a helpful set-up when the article gets expanded a bit. i don't have strong feelings about it either way, but ...

update: okay, i've implemented that idea as a test-run - if it doesn't make sense to you folks of course feel free to undo it! Sssoul (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The sectioning looks fine to me. Take care in the "misty clouds" of internet now all of You...Nisken (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

meanwhile it's probably fitting to point out the note i left on Ehausler's talk page. as i stated there, i'm reverting the fresh edit made to the paragraph that this RFC is trying to sort out. Sssoul (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On 14 September 2008 Wahlgren was arrested; three days later he was charged (Swedish: Häktningbeslut) with grave assault (Swedish: grov misshandel) with bodily harm to his wife. On 20 October 2008, a Swedish lower court found him guilty of a lesser charge of assault (Swedish: misshandel), and he was fined. His wife categorically denied that maltreatment had taken place.

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Papa Dee. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article3562791.ab
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.1337320/greps-efter-en-festnatt-i-stockholm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.expressen.se/1.1339953
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article3579527.ab
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vg.no/musikk/artikkel.php?artid=538567
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808045256/http://norwegiancharts.com/search.asp?search=papa+dee&cat=s to http://norwegiancharts.com/search.asp?search=papa+dee&cat=s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812223216/http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?search=papa+dee&cat=s to http://finnishcharts.com/search.asp?search=papa+dee&cat=s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808113728/http://austriancharts.at/search.asp?search=papa+dee&cat=s to http://austriancharts.at/search.asp?search=papa+dee&cat=s

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)