Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Randy Melchert's right-wing Christain apologetics blog

Randy Melchert's right-wing Christian apologetics blog is not an acceptable source. Christian trolls keep trying to add it. It's pure propaganda, It's nonsense, and it's a BLOG. A BLOG folks. Stop it. Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Attackers deleted Facebook as PDF-File

The attacker was not a muslim but a self declared conservative christian: http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Anders-Behring-Breivik-FACEBOOK.pdf --82.113.99.150 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He liked World of Warcraft and Call of Duty!! Video games made him do it!!! DARN YOU BLIZZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he liked Dexter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.93.225 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No but rather the far right wing blogs he used to read and post. --82.113.99.150 (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong 82.113.99.150. What's the matter with you? Determined to extract political mileage from this unspeakable act are you? You are not only flat-out wrong, you are also wrong to make such a claim in the first place. No one and nothing "makes" someone else do these kinds of horrific things. His own mental illness made him "do it," which is why there shouldn't be anything called "temporary insanity" as a defense to killing another human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.126.122 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not wrong as it is a fact that the far right wing is violent because it's inherent in their ideology, they are in a state of permanent war. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Reaction

The listed Israeli reaction doesn't appear to a valid news source. A Google search turns up nothing for "Jerusalem One", and I don't think a Tweet counts as official national reaction. I'm removing the listing. Windward1 (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, someone beat me to it. Windward1 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And anyway, we list only reactions by heads of states and other notable figures. Many countries have inviolable freedom of press, and the fact that someone would be as low as to publish or pretend to publish this kind of rubbish does not mean we should give them any more visibility they deserve. --hydrox (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article also cites an Aftenposten article implying a relationship between islamphobia and support for Israel. I don't understand Norwegian, could someone check if the Aftenposten actually implied a relationship? If so, could someone explain what that relationship is, since in and of itself, the citation makes Aftenposten seem to have an anti-jewish prejudice? Is this actually the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.249.117 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can look it up if you give me an URL. Aftenposten is considered a conservative newspaper, and thus more pro-Israel than most other media, although most media tend to lean towards the Palestinians. Ketil (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive searched on the web about the israeli connection. no match found in a newspaper. only in an iranian blog.

delete this part now! and how is the article that "showes" the sentence is from 2009? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraeliUpdater (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ARTICLE ABOUT ISRAEL'S REACTION TO THE NORWEGIAN ATTACKS: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/peres-to-norway-s-king-massacre-broke-our-hearts-in-israel-1.374996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.173.27 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is crazy. Israel have nothing to do with that, no more than Japan or S.korea or Serbia or Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear have to do with that though they were praised by the killer...Why should Israel response should be included here?--Gilisa (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentions of Israel

In the "Political and religious views" section about the terrorist's motivation, just 3 paragraphs long, Israel was mentioned six (!) times, and Judaism a few times more. This is absolutely ridiculous - this is a Norwegian terrorist in Norway, that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel, Israelis, or Jews. I can't belive his motivation had anything to do with Israel - it just doesn't make any sense! And I don't see any sources quoted to claim that it did have anything to do with Israel.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4099122,00.html 173.247.29.132 (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Please edit this story carefully, media is often unreliable in the early stages of reporting an event.

This is completely irrelevant... This fact about the murdered kids is reported in the Israeli newspaper because it deals with Israel - but doesn't imply that this is why they were killed, or that the murderer even knew about this fact. To show how absurd this connection is, imagine that I tell you that a day before they were killed, the kids ate steak. Would you conclude that the murderer was a militant vegetarian out to kill meat-eaters???? Nyh (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not completely irrelevant, see this article (must be better ones around, it is a pretty big program and encompasses several quite popular new-model right-wing parties in western Europe) and links to related articles to find the wellspring of Mr. Breivik's ideology. Breivik is more a neoconservative (see criticisms of that by Mersheimer and Walt among many others) than anything else.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Deadliest

One or more editors have added the claim that The shooting spree was the deadliest in modern Western history (assuming civilian victims), and the biggest act of violence in Norway since 1945..

I consider this hyperbole, and don't think it is notable. Stick to facts, and let the numbers speak for themselves. Ketil (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this [1] ; although they've cited refs, I see this as original research / novel synthesis, because I have not seen reliable sources making the claim.

Discussion, of course, welcome. 07:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I knows the BBC World claimed it was the worst and/or deadliest violence in Norway since WW2. Dunno about the deadliest shooting spree part though Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't saying the deadliest violence even broader than saying deadliest shooting spree? In a sense, saying shooting spree is making it narrower and, thus, even more likely to be in line with the ref. Silverseren^C 07:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Um as I said, I'm talking about it being the deadliest/worst violence in Norway since WW2 (the text our unnamed friend said it was the biggest act of violence in Norway since 1945 which is fairly similar). As I though would also be clear from the context, when I referred to 'shooting spree part' I meant the text our unnamed friend above referred to it as the deadliest shooting spree in modern Western history (assuming civilian victims) which is a rather broad claim with very undefined terms. Now although rather broad because they refer to non overlappinmg subsets, this claim clearly isn't inherently broader then the Norway since WW2 part, i.e. it's possible that it is true but the Norway part isn't. Just as it's possible that the worst violence in Norway part is true but the shooting spree in modern Western history isn't. And as I said, there are refs (as a simple search will show) for the Norway part, but I have no idea if there are refs for the other part (and no, our article isn't a suitable ref). Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody already noted that this is relevant for the article Killing spree. He seems to top anyone there, at least... --hydrox (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We need a reference.

If a reliable source says it is the 'deadliest spree' or whatever...then, yes, we can add it.

Give a reliable source, please - otherwise, it would be original research.  Chzz  ►  07:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that spree killing would seem to be different from shooting spree. If this event is classified as a spree killing it seems to be taking in to account the bombings and the later shootings as spree killing requires two different locations. Even if you call the shootings a shooting spree, it seems it itself wasn't a spree killing (although it may have been part of one) as it was basically only in one location. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• The sources seem to be rather varied in their example of what it is the deadliest since.

• "deadliest day of terror in Western Europe since the 2005 London bombings" - Sydney Morning Herald
• "in western Europe's deadliest carnage since the 2004 Madrid bombings" - Independent Online

Most of them seem to be comparing it to the 2004 Madrid one though. Silverseren^C 07:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ja. Hi Silver seren; was waiting for you to turn up :-) And, indeed, "halps!"

I've no objection to some generic "Bigger than X", "Smaller than Y", etc - of course - as long as some RS has said it. But...you already know what I mean.  Chzz  ►  08:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was the original version of this statement removed in the first place?. How exactly is it sensationalist? It's rather vital to discussing the subject by placing it in context. And more to the point it was removed for supposedly not being in the source yet it blatantly is!

"(CBS/AP)OSLO, Norway - A homegrown terrorist set off a deadly explosion in downtown Oslo before heading to a summer camp dressed as a police officer to commit one of the deadliest shooting sprees in history, killing at least 80 people as terrified youths ran and even swam for their lives, police said Friday." ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Prime Minister himself has characterized the attacks in exactly that fashion: "The deadliest attacks [in the nation] since World War II" Surely you're not likely to find a more credible source to make that distinction. I'll try to relocate a link to the relevant press conference. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

The quote from the Prime Minister should be included in the article: it is sourced to a notable authority, not merely an evaluation by a random editor or even newsman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.107.178 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a wide number of separate sources now saying this was the deadliest shooting spree in history. Some of the sources: Utøya: Historiens verste drapsmassakre (Verdens Gang), Norway reels from world's worst-ever mass shooting as police quiz Anders Breivik over deaths of 91 people (The Daily Telegraph (Australia)), Kan være det verste hatangrepet verden har sett (E24 Næringsliv), Norway killings: the quiet and modest man who became peacetime Europe's worst mass killer (The Daily Telegraph), Minst 85 drept på Utøya (Bergens tidende). Maybe it's time too add this? Keeps getting removed when somebody adds it. And the numbers in the List of rampage killers speak for themselves. --Miceagol (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism?

Why has this been called a terrorist attack? It's a nutter that's gone berserk. You wouldn't call Derrick Bird a terrorist would you? Needs to be changed in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.41.208 (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Any unprovoked attack done to cause fear and panic against innocent civilians can be labeled a terrorist attack by definition, but I agree- let's call him a religious nutjob, furthermore a Christian religious nutter, but wait, that already means all Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.1.160 (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is early days, but the attack is beginning to have echoes of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. This is classed as a terrorist incident, even though a large organization was not involved. Derrick Bird did not plant a bomb at a government building, which suggests at least some political motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it seems to me it remains to be seen whether this is terrorism or another form of insanity, as it must depend on the motives of the perpetrator(s), as yet only conjectured only. But reliable sources do call it terrorism - I guess it comes from Norwegian authorities, and we should report that. -- In fact, it seems to be a case of fundamentalist Christian terrorism as much as rigth-wing terrorism - though terrorism, whether religious or not, is by definition (my definition at least) always political as it intends to impact society.--Nø (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am very surprised that "terrorist" was removed from the lead. All the media is referring to the attack as "terror". NRK, TV2, VG, Dagbladet. The last of these links (Dagbladet) say that the police have charged Breivik for crimes in accordance with the Norwegian law on terrorism. I am restoring "terrorist" to the lead, and will add the last link as a cite for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Also Aftenposten reports that the police have charged Breivik for crimes in accordance with the Norwegian law on terrorism. (He can get 21 years.) --Hordaland (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to be of arab descent or a muslim to be a terrorist. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)^[1] 13:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we seriously having a debate here about whether the bombing of three of a government's most senior ministry buildings, followed by a mass shooting spree at a youth camp that was sponsored by the dominant political party, all seemingly carried out by a man with a radical political, religious, and ethnic ideology qualifies as terrorism? Seriously? I think I would sooner classify E. coli as "maybe" bacteria than I would consider these acts "maybe" terrorism. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

We have no evidence to suggest that this is actually terrorism, rather than a killing spree, other than speculation. This may not be terrorism as we have no proof that these attacks were intended to incite terror, and perhaps was seen as a game, as his interests on facebook would express.--TheGreatDefective (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think 67. makes a good argument. I understand the urge to obliterate the vague "terrorism" from the language altogether, but if there is such a thing, surely this is it. The perpetrators described the killing of civilians in Oklahoma City as collateral damage from a military attack, with some academic plausibility, but this was an attack on an island full of children. Wnt (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The attacks appear to be politically motivated with a goal of forcing change which certainly qualifies as terrorism to me. I'm not sure there are official sources yet for that information though, just bits and pieces of things the killer or someone using the killer's name had posted on the internet prior to the attacks in which he strongly denounced multiculturalism and marxism. 174.101.225.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

It seems to me that a few here are overfocused on one narrow aspect of a possible definition for terrorism, namely that the terrorist must have a clear, well-defined and fully-understood intent of promoting some specific change. This strikes me as a classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Motivation is an aspect of how people have historically defined terrorism, not necessarily the defining aspect. All of the major hallmarks of terrorism are there. It was a violent attack in the public sphere by a private non-military entity, which targeted major government institutions (including the the head of state) and the lives of innocent citizens alike in locations that had an undeniable political significance. The perpetrator seems to have been vocally opposed to said government along social and ideological lines. The idea that such acts must be part of a well-delineated and logical attempt to leverage social reform in order to qualify as terrorism is ridiculous. By this definition any man who sets a bomb off in a public location for no other purpose than because he believed his god willed those people dead would not qualify as a terrorist unless he was trying to make a clear social statement. And yet clearly we routinely classify such acts as terrorism. Furthermore, even if you were a stickler for the social intent aspect, the man attacked two sites, two hours apart, that were clearly linked by a shared political affiliation, he had to know the significance and that alone ought to qualify as an ideological statement. There is just too much that we already know about the manner and circumstances of the attacks and the nature of the selected targets for this to be considered anything but terrorism under any reasonable common-sense application of the term, regardless of whatever garbled manifesto we have yet to receive from the man. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

Like user Hordaland wrote the person arrested is currently charged (so far) for terrorism in accordance to the Norwegian law paragraph §147a that covers this and can give up to 21 years prison. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4181167.ece http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19020522-010.html#map018 -Laniala (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik's lawyer Geir Lippestad told Norway's NRK television channel:

He wanted a change in society and, from his perspective, he needed to force through a revolution ... He wished to attack society and the structure of society. He explained that it was cruel but that he had to go through with these acts." http://news.sky.com/skynews

The motive was political so it was terrorism - even if carried out by one person acting alone. Stanley Oliver (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty undeniable that the label is accurate now, though actually, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm amazed that there was a debate on the matter to begin with. Regardless, I think it's time to discuss reverting the title back to a form that reflects the terrorist nature of the attacks. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

From what I have read, there is no reason to label this as a terrorist attack. The attacker has not released any statements regarding why he went on a killing spree, so any tie with his political views is only speculation at this time. Terrorism, to my mine, also implies the use of fear of a future attack as a tool to achieve a particular goal, but since there are no threats of future attacks from this person, there is now no "terror". Therefore the attacker is not a "terrorist" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.214.130 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Terrorism, to my mine, also implies the use of fear of a future attack as a tool to achieve a particular goal."

I just don't see how this has ever been a requirement for terrorism. That may be the root of how the term developed in the first place, but it long, long ago shed that narrow context. The possibility of a second attack from the exact same person would invalidate any suicide bombing as a terrorist attack, and clearly these are widely considered terrorist in nature, almost by default. And actually, he has released statements as to his motive through his lawyer, saying that he committed the attacks hoping that it would lead to a backlash against right-wing groups and that this would force right-leaning persons to abandon what he views as a 'false illusion' that they can accomplish their goals peacefully and thus force them to join violent revolutionary groups. So clearly future violence is central to his motives, even if that were the heart and soul of terrorism. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

If his goal is to promote anarchy, then he is an anarchist, not a terrorist. Also, terrorist suicide bombers are typically a part of a terrorist group, not individuals acting alone. Also, if this attacker is defined as a terrorist, then Charles Manson must also be a retro-classified as a terrorist, as both of them had similar intentions. But I have never heard anyone try to classify Charles Manson as a terrorist. IF we do this, then why not call armed robbers terrorists, because they use fear of being shot to their advantage?

And in what manner do you consider anarchist and terrorist are mutually exclusive? In any event, you're not following the flow of the discussion here - I'm not the one who suggested that the threat of violence (or further violence) was the central factor in determining if an act should be considered terrorism, that was 60.'s stance. I actually argued that this in and of itself is probably not a workable standard. I was simply pointing out that if that was his criteria, then the current scenario actually met that bar, as new information he was apparently not aware of suggested Breivik's alleged motives were consistent with that goal. I do happen to believe this attack does qualify for terrorism, if anything does, but not based on the criteria 60. was forwarding. If you want to know why I would judge it terrorism, read my other comments in this section, I've already discussed them at length (for too long actually). Anyway, this is going to be my last post on this particular aspect of the article since this page is getting excessively cluttered and we are all making it harder to get actual relevant material. Our own standards and reasoning are not relevant as we should not ultimately be putting forward our own opinions but rather developing content based on appropriate sources, which does not include our own declarations, no matter how well-thought-out and justified they may seem to us, a fact that under these disturbing circumstances I regrettably forgot when I plunged into this debate. I think we should all consider scaling back our responses in-so-far as our opinions are concerned. The page is getting mammoth and cumbersome with arguments that have limited influence on what will ultimately be added to the article, which few of us even have access to alter at this stage anyway. Snow Rise (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess that I have to accept that, as you say, the meaning of the word terrorism has been significantly changed since it was coined over a hundred years ago, and as it was used commonly less than 20 years ago. Although I hate seeing a perfectly functional and descriptive word miss-used and watered down into banality through lazy repetition, I have to accept that this is just how the English Language develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.214.130 (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am suspecting that the motive was not terror, but to get attention, and he found controversial politics to be the easiest way to get himself into the limelight. He might just as easily been upset by a bad episode of his favorite show on Television, and gone off and killed nearly 100 actors and actresses. Or perhaps upset himself because there was a picture of a dog on Norway's postage stamps, and he likes cats. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"I am suspecting that the motive was not terror, but to get attention, and he found controversial politics to be the easiest way to get himself into the limelight." Pure supposition, but in any event, I don't see how this kind of desire would be in any way mutually exclusive with terrorism. I honestly do think he is absolutely driven by a desire to have his beliefs become the focus of such intense scrutiny -- his 1500 page manifesto, written before-hand (and which reads with the typical awful, awkward self-important quality you usually find with extremists who have convinced themselves that they are somehow political intellectuals) leaves very little doubt to that. But the underlying pathos is irrelevant. The man used mass violence to intimidate and attempt to further and impose his political ideology on others. Under any textbook, dictionary, or practical, real-world definition of the the word, this is terrorism. And quite frankly the repetitive knit-picking over the semantics begins to grow aggravating when it's clear that people making the claims that it doesn't qualify have clearly not taken the time to catch up on the latest information, even in-so-far as what is available on this very page. Look, I know the amount of information pooling here is starting to become truly massive and that much of it requires tedious sourcing to confirm it's veracity, but I think this situation requires more of us than the typical article. This man coldly stalked and gunned down at least 84 people, the vast majority children as young as 11. Out of respect for them and for their families who must be suffering unimaginable grief, I think we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard here, certainly something more than formulating banal theories about why else we might have done such horrific things without studying the facts and seeing there is no doubt as to his motivation, as if we were for some reason looking for an excuse not to accept him for what he is. Look, I know our job here as wikipedians is to analyze the situation as dispassionately as possible, lest we let our emotions influence the content of the article, I do. But surely we have an even larger obligation as brothers and sisters of a world community to see to it that the wounds of the Norwegian people are respected. There is a city and a nation traumatized by fear right now. I know how that feels, I've lived through it twice, first with New York and then with London. And trying to deny that the Norwegian people are suffering in exactly the same way feels like a ghastly slight to me. Maybe that's irrational -- certainly the death toll doesn't change whether we label this terrorism or not, at least not as regards the attacks that have already occurred -- but empathy is all I have to offer the Norwegian people right now, including a dear friend, who, had she not been off work that day might very well have been on that very street when that bomb went off, so I'm just asking that we don't deny them a certain kind of solidarity that is due when violent extremism strikes one's home. Not without good evidence and good argument. The man terrorized. He brought a living nightmare into existence a few days ago. He meant to. He is a terrorist.

67.117.27.49 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

Actually, I must revise my opinion some on this matter. While on a personal level I stand by everything I've said above, AndyTheGrump reminds us in a bellow section ('Christian Fundamentalist') that we are not to be governed by our own logic in how we describe these acts and the man who perpetrated them but are instead to forward only what facts and opinions (including terminology) such as can be attributed to appropriate sources. Having been reminded to look at things in that light, I think further debate in this section unlikely to get us anywhere productive and I for one am going to find another venue to 'define' exactly what I find this man to be. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

The man is charged under criminal law for acts of terrorism. Thus, the Norwegian court labels the attacks as act of terrorism. This defines the action, not the man, however, it clearly makes a point that the article should adhere to the label "terroristic attacks". BloodIce (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian

The revision of this article I looked at a few seconds ago does not contain the words "Christian" or "Christianity" even once, despite Anders Behring Breivik's self-identification as a Christian. Look up another terrorist attack of your choice (e.g. 9/11, Madrid bombings, London bombings) and see how many times the words "Islam", "Islamic", "Islamist" and "Muslim" appear. This is shameful, Wikipedia. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Islamism was the primary motive of the other attacks. It is not yet clear whether Christianity was any part in the motives of the attacks. If it does happen to be the case than the article will be updated to reflect that accordingly. --Kuzwa (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll say this much - I don't doubt for a second that we'll shortly have plenty of cause to include reference to his apparent extremist Christian ideology, but for the moment the issue is technically muddled. The police have as yet not released any information on the man's interrogation so far except to classify him as "extreme right" and apparently eager to explain the reasoning behind his acts. So presumably there will soon be plenty of material to explore this angle. Though, the reports I've read of his social media pages suggest he's more anti-Muslim than he is pro-Christian. Which is not to say that he can't be both (I'd be surprised if he wasn't), but we have more evidence for one than we do the other. Personally I'm more upset by the lack of the term "wormy little fucktard douchebag who apparently wants to try usurp Hitler's longtime claims to A) beingthe most counterproductive waste of human tissue, and B) having the most ridiculous facial hair to be seen on a pathetic effeminate face." But we have to work towards a consensus when it comes to terminology. Maybe I can get a vote? 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

I haven't hard that religion played any part of this act, although little has come out from the police authorities yet. We can wait and see before jumping to conclusions as to if Christianity, or any other religion played a role. He's a blondi, obviously a murderer, right? Dinkytown talk 19:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Christianity played no part in this in the same way that a pope isn't responsible for his crusade, please. A self proclaimed knight Templar showing reverence to crusades of old and committing his atrocities with a cross displayed on his chest, be proud; the christian skin heads will be at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.99.179 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

He acted in an un-Christian way!82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

They do that a lot (and see No true Scotsman). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Aders acted in a un-Christian way. He was a thug and a renegade if he was of Christianaty.82.27.19.246 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

(Someone was so "stung" by my comment they removed it. What is it about the truth which some find so objectionable? Here, allow me to put it back.)

You liberals, who hijack Wikipedia over your own, personal bias so often it's lost all hope of ever meeting the spirit behind the NPOV bar set by its founders, can hardly WAIT to hang "Christian Conservative" around the neck of this psychopathic killer, can you? "Christians" are pro-life, and "Conservatives" are pro-individual, remember? Try, if you can, to recall it was Republican lawmakers who were responsible for the overwhelming majority of the anti-slavery bills introduced to the U.S. Congress before the Civil War, while Democratic lawmakers were responsible for the overwhelming majority of attempts to kill those bills, just like it is today when it comes to murdering unborn children. This nutcase is no more a "Christian Conservative" than Obama is either of them, though the truth hardly matters when you insist others live (or not) by your One World View, does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.126.122 (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment was probably removed because it is hyperbolic, accusatory, and non-productive and mostly concerned with issues that have no relevance to this article. This is not a place to discuss your personal political or religious leanings, nor for ideological rants - there are plenty of forums and other opportunities for you to do that online. The sole purpose of this page is to discuss what information should be added to the article and in what format. Now this man may not be your idea of what constitutes a 'true' Christian. That's fine, I doubt he's many people's idea of that. But if it turns out that his Christian ideology was a motivating factor for the attacks (and apparently there is mounting evidence in his own words that it was) then that information is relevant to the article and should (and will) be added. But in case you hadn't noticed, at the time you wrote your comment, the consensus was actually that there was not yet sufficient evidence so as to add said content. I suggest that maybe you should read these two articles before continuing to participate in this (or any) discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility

67.117.27.49 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

The video that he published is clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwp2FnRmsE&skipcontrinter=1 He is a Christian terrorist. He's not a guy who happens to be Christian. His Christianity, as he understood it, played a significant role in his desire to kill the "cultural marxists" who were, as he saw it, working to weaken Christendom and the "cultural purity" of Norway. His whole shtick is to get rid of the Muslims because he saw them as a threat to Norway's cultural and religious (Christian) purity. He was a member of the "Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon." His video told Christians to be like the crusaders and battle the Muslims, join a local Templar group, and rely on the virtues of the crusaders and other people who had battled Muslims in the name of Christianity. In the video he also hated on feminism, multiculturalism, Marxism, Obama, and all the usual stuff you usually find amongst right-winger Christians in the United States. 66.188.228.180 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"His whole shtick is to get rid of the Muslims because he saw them as a threat to Norway's cultural and religious (Christian) purity." The religious part is not at all consistent with the viewpoints he expressed. For instance, at 10:57 (you need to zoom in) in the video you linked, he wrote: KT is a “cultural Christian” (Christian Identity) military order and NOT a "religious Christian" (Christian fundamentalist) organization. Logic and reason will always take precedence over biblical texts. KT is open for members from all denominations of Christendom, even agnostic and atheist Christians. Our Christian profile does not mean that we oppose Odinism or Odinistic principles. KT believe Odinism make out a central and important part of Northern European culture and traditions. KT principles are not compatible with national socialism as NS propagates a clear imperialistic (expansionist) and and anti-Christian cultural and religious stance. KT on the other hand are clear supporters of cultural isolationism, strongly condems the Jewish holocaust and strongly supports Israels ongoing struggle against Jihad. [scare quotes in the original] Downthatroad (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize that the shooter's self-proclaimed associations are true and verifiable, and I see how they are being handled in the article. I'd like to point out that Christianity is a well-defined term, defined by Christ and documented in the Bible. "Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples". I don't think it's too radical to say that Jesus and the Bible are the authoritative sources on who or what is and is not Christian. OhSqueezy (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do see your point Squeezy. It does seem to be about as difficult a situation as semantics ever puts us in, doesn't it? On the one hand, when his religious beliefs played such prominent role in his actions, we can't fail to recognize the fact. On the other, he's clearly violated what many Christians would say is the most sacred doctrine of the faith. If only that sentiment was completely universal amongst self-described Christians, so that we might not be faced with such hated dilemmas. But, speaking to someone who seems to be a Christian, let me say that I for one appreciate it when someone like yourself understands the ugly necessity of defining him as a Christian extremist, where others (perhaps understandably) might allow their sense of self to interfere and end up venomously attacking people who are simply trying to sort through such a hideous mess. I'm not a person of faith, at least not in that way, but I appreciate the burdens the faithful must bear for their beliefs, and few can be as indignant as being lumped together with, however superficially, with a twisted excuse for a man such as the one who committed these atrocities. Thankfully, I have faith in the Wikipedia community (more so than most others, in fact) that we can handle this situation with sensitivity and measured care. Those so dedicated to the truth as people tend to be here have an advantage in avoiding the pitfalls and recriminations that so often plague other hubs of communication when such monstrosities occur. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

In his manifesto, he separated religion from cultural Christianity though, and identified as the latter. To quote,

A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian. page 1307 of his manifesto (linked to here) Downthatroad (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that quote just muddies the water even further, doesn't it? He's vague on whether he even believes in God. That is to say, you can't make out from that statement whether by not 'having a personal relationship with God' he is refering to someone who believes in the Christian god but does not practice the religion actively or whether it refers to an atheist who gravitates towards Christian principles and identity. Regardless, it's starting to become clear that ethnic and cultural purity are the more dominant parts of his ideology and that the Christian aspects are subordinate to them. Snow Rise (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source covering the quote and others: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/186020/20110725/anders-breivik-manifesto-shooter-bomber-downplayed-religion-secular-influence-key.htm Downthatroad (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Cultural Christian which may be helpful in clarifying his beliefs. From those quotes and articles, it seems like the shooter may be secular and that his interpretation of Christianity partially motivated him. OhSqueezy (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As for my original point, I'd like to summarize by adding that any research of the term Christian will chronologically lead to the Bible. The origin of the word itself and any further extensions of the concept should be clarified if used to identify a person during a thorough explanation of their identity. Eventually, this article should become a presentation of accurate research and not necessarily a summary of a few days' worth of reactions, most of which shouldn't have been used in the first place, or at the very least, placed under a "reactions" heading. OhSqueezy (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

John Stewart Mill quote.

The old version said that he was an admirer of Mill, but we know that he only quoted Mill on his twitter account. The quote is "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests". I've changed it to reflect this. Source: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080610--Havermayer (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He also listed Mill's On Liberty in his favorite books on Facebook. Lolilith (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Is publishing pictures of spree killers a good idea?

Experts on the subject recommend not publishing pictures of spree killers to avoid encouraging copycat killings. I'm not entirely comfortable with Wikipedia breaking that guideline. As the picture is also nominated for deletion can we remove it soon? The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Many think that that's bullshit. Verify your sources. --TheGreatDefective (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw an expert talking about it on Charlie Brooker's Newswipe. Also here and there are many others pleading to stop giving publicity to mass murderers. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean we delete Adolf Hitler? Wnt (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. If someone said this elsewhere, it carries little weight on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WP:NOTCENSORED. We need to know what the guy looks like. The killer at Espo's Cello shoping mall has his image on his bio.82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He's on the front page of every newspaper, so I think it's too late anyway. Ketil (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yaa, let's leave Osama bin Laden's face up, but take this white conservatives face down. That way the only mass murderer faces we'll see will be brown. Great idea! I vote to do this! Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I note with dismay the reductio ad Hitlerum reactions to my suggestion at denying this "man" the notoriety he craved. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Adelson, that's not really helping. I happen to agree with you that Yurp's suggestion is ill-conceived, if for no other reason than our priority here at Wikipedia has to be to document as thoroughly as we may -- and if that means granting this worm some of the attention he obviously craves so much, then we have to swallow that bitter pill, I'm afraid. But implying that Yurp was acting out of some sort of latent racism is uncalled for - he clearly had better motives. Anyway, we're just going to have to console ourselves that this guy happens to look just as pathetic and unintimidating as you'd expect of a man who would choose children as his target. Let his beady little rat eyes be known, let his ridiculous facial hair be sneered at and mocked, and his hitler-esque receding hairline and awkward attempts at dress-up too. I for one think these pictures reinforce how we should treat this freak with exactly as much respect as we'd give to the villain from The Fifth Element if he walked into the room: http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7208/fifthbringmethepriest.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Anders_Behring_Breivik_%28Facebook_portrait_in_suit%29.jpg/220px-Anders_Behring_Breivik_%28Facebook_portrait_in_suit%29.jpg

67.117.27.49 (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

In my point of view, it would be vastly exaggerated to remove all picture of mass murderes from encyclopaedias. Pictures can be an important part of a wikipedia article. In the case of Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and others, knowing their pictures can even be considered as general education. Nevertheless, knowing about the threat of copycat crimes and in the will of writing an informative encyclopaedia, we should carefully think about what information bonus a picture gives. A self-glorifying picture with a weapon is anything, but not informative. It is intended to arouse feelings - and that's what it actually does. In this case there should be really good reasons that support the depicture - otherwise it would be better (and also, it would NOT be a loss!) to prefer other pictures over those who support a positive-biased view of the offender. Thank you very much for consideration! --131.188.24.42 (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The arguments I made above not withstanding, I actually agree with this point as well. I don't see the need or value in keeping his call of duty wannabe picture with the gun either, especially given the nature of the Utoya killings and considering the possibility remains that this may be one of the weapons he actually used in that massacre. Knowing what he looks like is sufficient, preserving his self-glorification is inappropriate and undesirable in more ways than can reasonably be discussed here. His peacocking suit image should stay, the wetsuit image should go. Snow Rise (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted bellow, we now have an alternative image, a candid picture taken as Breivik was brought in for his arraignment: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080747

Also, it's become known (and I'm looking for a source to validate this now), that Breivik had the existing photos taken professionally as part of his attempt to 'market' his crimes and trial as a means of recruiting others to his cause. Given the reservations that some here had already expressed concerning the photos, which seem all the more valid now, and given the fact the facebook photos now very likely violate wikipedia's licensing guidelines with a free-equivalent photo available, I think perhaps these photos (or at least the gun-totting one) should be removed and replaced with this new candid and public domain shot, even though the smug douche's smile in this new photo makes me want to wretch. Snow Rise (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• NoteAs the originator of this section I've changed the title because some users are confusing killing spree mass murderers with "religious fundamentalists" and "politicians gone wild". The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Admirer of Winston Churchill and Max Manus

I removed the sentence saying that he was an admirer of them. The reason being that he only listed them as interests on fb, which doesn't necessarily mean he admired them. We just don't know. I'm waiting for more sources on this. --Havermayer (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been widely reported and is reliably sourced. We cannot rely on your interpretation of whether it's correct, only on what reliable sources report. JonFlaune (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why insult Winston and Max! Anders’ words on his Facebook page are not WP:RS. We need a stronger sorce.82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. We are not using Facebook as a source at all. We are using reliable sources (currently El Mundo (Spain) and the Herald Sun, but hundreds of others pointing this out can be found). It doesn't matter if you find the material offensive, because Wikipedia is not censored. JonFlaune (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Those sources are using his fb interests listing to conclude that he admired them. Its somewhat ambiguous however. I'm going to find another source that says that he simply listed them as interests, which is more accurate. --Havermayer (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

O.K.82.27.19.246 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

AP has just put out a timeline [2] which made me think...a timeline of some kind would really help the article. I suppose it could be a graphic, or a table - or prose; I don't know.

Any ideas, or indeed anyone just adding something, welcome.  Chzz  ►  19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A table of events?82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Use {{Timeline-event}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this huge BBC timeline.[3]82.27.19.246 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the official timeline from the police of the events at Utøya - https://www.politi.no/Nyhet_10256.xhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Description apparently In his own words

Very bulky, but worth reading data list by User:188.103.193.14

Personal facts: Name: Andrew Berwick/Anders Behring Breivik Nationality: Norwegian Born: February 1979 Height: 183 cm Weight: 80 kg Ethnicity: Nordic/Norwegian Address: Oslo ,Norway Personality: Optimistic, pragmatic, ambitious, creative, hard working Political view: Cultural conservative, revolutionary conservative, Vienna school of thought, economically liberal Religion: Christian, Protestant but I support a reformation of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by Catholisism. The typical “Protestant Labour Church” has to be deconstructed as its creation was an attempt to abolish the Church Religious: I went from moderately to agnostic to moderately religious Education: Non-formal equivalent to 7 years + at university level Professions: Investor, Director, Manager - founder of several companies, Small business management (including organisational development), political analyst, author, stock analyst/trader. Im unsure whether resistance fighter (Justiciar Knight Commander) and martyr counts as a profession:) Nicotine: Yes Alcohol: Occasionally Drugs: No Tattoos: No Sports: Snowboarding, fitness (body building/spinning), running Watch sport: Only women’s sand volley ball:P Perhaps I would if Norway didn’t suck so hard in footbal Name of your primary weapon: Mjöllnir Name of your side arm: Gungnir Hobbies: Political analysis, studying new topics, Free Mason, Heraldry, Genealogy, gaming (MMO or Modern Warfare 2), travelling – learning about new cultures, music, friends. I have had the privilege of experiencing the following countries: Sweden, Denmark, UK, Germany, Poland, Belarus, France, Austria, Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Cyprus, Malta, US, Turkey, Mexico, China, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia. Key points – curriculum vitae Key qualifications: Organisational/business development – Experience with the establishment, development and management of smaller businesses related to the fields; organisational/business development, small business management, marketing and sales Financial analysis – stock/currency analysis relating to the fields/indicators; candlesticks, RSI, stochastic, MACD, Bollinger bands, DMI, momentum 2005-2007: Managing director of E-Commerce Group AS (part investment company – 50%, part sales/outsourcing company – 50%). I converted ABB ENK to a corporation (AS). Total of 7 employees: 3 in Norway, 1 in Russia, 1 in Indonesia, 1 in Romania, 1 in the US. Distribution of outsourcing services to foreign companies, sold software/programming solutions. Worked part time with day trading (stocks/options/currency/commodities). This was a front (milking cow) with the purpose of financing resistance/liberation related military operations. The company was successful although most of the funds were channelled through a Caribbean subsidiary (with base in Antigua, a location where European countries do not have access): Brentwood Solutions Limited with bank accounts in other Caribbean nations and Eastern Europe. E-Commerce Group was terminated in 2007 while most of the funds were channelled in an “unorthodox manner” to Norway available to the coming intellectual and subsequent operations phase. 2002-2004: Director of Anders Behring Breivik ENK) (part time from May 02 (shortly after my inclusion in PCCTS) – des. 02, full time from March 03. Same emphasis as E-Commerce Group. This was a front (milking cow) I established and focused on shortly after my inclusion in PCCTS, Knights Templar with the purpose of financing resistance/liberation related military operations. 2002-2003: Supervisor/internal advisor for Bankia Bank ASA (Apr. 02 – March 03) 2001-2002: Customer service representative for Bankia Bank ASA (Nov. 01 – Apr. 02) 2000-2001: Managing director of Media Group AS. Development and sales of outdoor media solutions (primarily billboards). My company was partially acquired/bought by Mediamax Norway AS after I (and my employee, Kristoffer Andresen) had built a billboard portfolio from scratch in the Oslo area which was then sold to Mediamax Norge AS (which was later bought by JC Decaux Norway) and Clear Channel (July 00 – July 01) 1999-2000: Team leader for the customer service rep. dept. for Enitel Telephony/mobile/internet/support division (March 99 – July 00) 1998-1999: Director for Behring & Kerner Marketing DA. Implenetation and sales of telephonic services (part time from Aug. 98-Feb. 99) 1997-1999: Corporate customer care rep. for customer care/internet support for Telia Norway AS (Nov 97-Feb 99) 1996-1997: Part time as a sales rep. for ACTA Economical Counselling (Feb 96-97) Education: Non-formal studies/degrees: Bachelor of Business Administration (major: small business management) part time studies using the curriculum/online study courses from AIU, American InterContinental University (98-02), Bachelor of Political Science (major: political science and history) part time studies (00-05), Master of Political Science, full/part time studies (05-10). See other chapter for specification. Other professional activities: 2005: Was coached by my friend, former mentor and independent stock analyst; Xun Dai over a 6 month period on the areas: technical stock analysis: candlesticks, RSI, stochastic, MACD, Bollinger bands, DMI, momentum 2000-2001: Was coached by mo former mentor – and managing director of Hypertec AS; Richard Steenfeldt-Berg over a 12 month period on the areas; management, administration, corporate/business/organisation development (May 00-May 01) 1995-1998: Oslo Handelsgymnasium/Hartvig Nissen High School Board positions, professional activities, responsibilities 2003: Candidate for the Oslo City Council election on behalf of the Oslo Progress Party. This was during the “crossroad” when I was in the process of deciding whether I would fully abandon conventional politics (and a career within conventional politics) as a solution/source to acquire funds for the future operation or if I would rather leave conventional politics altogether and rather focus on entrepreneurship/business as the source for financing my future and clandestine participation in the pan-European Conservative Revolutionary Movement/pan-European Resistance Movement. As you already know I became one of the founding members of the PCCTS, Knights Templar in 2002 and among the very first Justiciar Knight Commanders. However, regardless of this choice, I was not completely convinced I was done with conventional politics. I actually decided to do a last push (after my pledge to the PCCTS) as I was already nominated on behalf of the Oslo Progress Party for the City Council election in 2003/2004. I came relatively close to being elected but was not among the final contestants due to the fact that the Progress Party Youth (lead by my rival Jøran Kallmyr) refused, for strategical reasons, to support my candidature. At the time I was more popular than Jøran but needed the support of the youth organisation (an organisation I had been a part of for a few years). I don’t blame him for backstabbing me like that though. After all, he had invested so much more of his time to the organisation than I had. He deserved it while I didn’t and I would probably have done the same thing if I was him. Also, during the “crossroad phase” I had lost all faith in the Progress Party as a solution to Norway’s rapid disintegration due to multiculturalism and Islamisation. A moderate cultural conservative political party like the Progress Party is un-capable of solving any of our primary problems as they are systematically ridiculed and isolated by all other political parties and a united media sector. This, even despite of the fact that they have taken measures and gotten rid of all true nationalists ending up with only opportunistic career cynisists unwilling to take any political risks. The Progress Party is now a part of the problem as they continuously give the Norwegian people false hope and thus contributes to pacify them. They should rather be honest and admit that all hopes for the democratical change of the society is futile and rather encourage all patriotic Norwegians to resist the multiculturalist regime through armed resistance. Their unwillingness to do this makes them a central part of the problem and in fact an obstacle to the liberation of and the reconquista of Norway. I anticipate that the Norwegian media will persecute and undermine the Progress Party for my earlier involvement in the organisation. This is not a negative thing as an increasing amount of Norwegians will then have their “illusions of democratic change” crushed (if the Progress Party is annihilated by the multiculturalist media) and rather resorts to armed resistance. From a tactical and pragmatical viewpoint; the PC Medias defeat of the Progress Party will benefit the armed National Resistance Movement in Norway. The more moderate alternatives are persecuted the more likely it is that the average nationalists illusions of peaceful reform will be crushed, which will lead to him seeking “other means”. Because at this point, armed resistance and the violent overthrow of our regime is the only thing that can save us. 2002: Founding member (national representative) of the PCCTS, Knights Templar, in London (April). 2002: Member of the board of directors of the control authority for Majorstuen Eldresenter (Majorstuen Retirement home), political position for the Norwegian Progress Party. 2002: Member of the board of directors for Uranienborg Elementary and Secondary School, political position for the Norwegian Progress Party. 2001: Development of the financial prospectus for Hypertec AS in cooperation with NB Partner AS and PriceWaterhouseCoopers DA (Jan 01-May 01) 2000-2003: Board member in Progress Party Frogner and Vice Chairman in the Progress Party Youth – Oslo West.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.193.14 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 July 2011

I read it and it is' informative, if verbose.!86.24.23.148 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Suspected perpetrator

Since he has confessed, do we still need the suspected on there? Or do we have to wait until he is actually convicted? I'm not sure how Norwegian law works in this regards. Silverseren^C 22:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We could describe him as "admitted perpetrator"? Norwegian law isn't really relevant in this regard (whether we describe him as an admitted perpetrator). JonFlaune (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My point on Norwegian law is because in some places, when someone confesses, there is no case or anything, they just immediately go to jail, for sentencing to be determined at a later point. But, anyways, admitted perpetrator sounds good. Silverseren^C 22:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There will be a trial (probably sometime next year) where he will be found guilty or innocent, so he's not convicted yet. But there's no problem with describing him as the admitted perpetrator from a legal point of view. He first was the suspected perpetrator, then became the admitted perpetrator, and is likely to become at some point the convicted perpetrator. JonFlaune (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you people nuts?! By making him famous and a star, you GIVE A GROUND FOR FURTHER WANNA-BE-FAMOUS freaks! That's why, every time, police all over the world refrains from naming terrorists. midzuno (talk) 0:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We're not making him famous. We're just analyzing him into atoms, so that nobody follows his path. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Source #62

62. "Dynamittgubben" (in Norwegian). Aftenposten, A-magasinet. 20 February 2009. How can this source be about the shooter if it's dated 2009? I can't find it online either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoriesTime (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange?82.27.19.246 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is quoting Aftenposten about the website document.no, not about current happenings. --Hordaland (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro gay?

I'm reading his manifesto now. He bitches a lot about homosexuality and how its abhorrent. --Havermayer (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't surprise that me that his political beliefs are very inconsistent. He also said he was "pro-gay". JonFlaune (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But, regardless, we have to wait for reliable sources to cover and interpret his manifesto before we can include anything. Silverseren^C 22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think his beliefs are inconsistent. I think the manifesto is him clearly stating his beliefs. I only have a translation of the source that says he's "pro gay", and I'm not sure where it says it. I actually have a really hard time reading it. http://ekstrabladet.dk/minsag/article1590881.ece --Havermayer (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He refers to "our anti-racist/pro-gay[s]/pro-Israel stance". The comment is originally from one the comments he posted on the anti-Muslim website document.no[4]. JonFlaune (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He used being a closet-homosexual as one of his coverups when friends and family got suspicious of why he kept large parts of his personal life secret. (source: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7724818) It is thus possible that he said the pro-gay thing on document.no to have a back-up for this claim. This is speculation however, but might explain it. --Painocus (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

his picture in the dark LaCoste sweater has been used in at least one all-male chat room in the past (probably months ago), but that doesn't mean it was him using it. (personal knowledge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.140.243 (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He's definitely not pro-gay according to the manifesto. Maybe someone should put something about that in, since it's contradictory? Maybe he just wanted to make his ideas more palatable to more people and that's a social aspect he can compromise on, I dunno. Lolilith (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"it is Western Europe's deadliest terrorist attack since the March 2004 Madrid train bombings"

Is norway in western europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.194.16 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's in Northern Europe, but because Europe is generally classified into West and East, yes, it is in Western Europe. See the link I just gave. Silverseren^C 23:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's both in Western Europe and in Northern Europe. Or, if you want, in Northwestern Europe, or the northern part of Western Europe. JonFlaune (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Western and Eastern Europe are as much cultural and political terms as they are geographical. Norway easily fits into Western Europe on this basis, it's never really been in dispute. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Scandinavia's hisory actuly.10:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.23.148 (talk)

Breivik's connection to the ebook '2083: A European Declaration of Independence'

This book was written by "Andrew Berwick" but includes the line "Being a Norwegian myself..." on page 1369. As the video summary of this book includes pictures of Breivik, we can assume that this 1500-page book is his manifesto.

2083: A European Declaration of Independence

2.26.230.126 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)(i.e.)

Yes, this has been confirmed by many reliable sources including the NRK. JonFlaune (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading through that book right now, I can definitely say we have an extreme case of christian fundamentalism here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.114.225 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is seriously creepy to read, the last 50 pages describe how he did everything in detail. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And the diary portion ends with "I believe this will be my last entry. It is now Fri July 22nd, 12.51." on page 1472. --Hordaland (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Biochemical Rounds

While flicking through his Book/diary/manifesto, I noticed he purchased liquid nicotine. Searching the document further, I saw that he put lethal drugs into hollow point bullets, clearly intending to poison those who did not die on impact of rounds. The chemicals he used were Ricin, which apparently causes diarrhoea, and liquid Nicotine, which causes respiratory failure. This is particularly worrying, as it means that there could potentially be more deaths amongst those who were shot. Should the biochemical element of this be mentioned in the article? --TheGreatDefective (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We can only mention it once reliable sources start discussing the manifesto and discuss the chemicals. If we put such things in ourselves directly from the manifesto, it would count as original research, as we would be the ones interpreting it and not qualified professionals. Silverseren^C 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm very curious whether he went through with it, or if it would even work. --Havermayer (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have followed the news closely, and none of this has been mentioned a single time. It has been said that most of his "book" has been copy-pasted from other things, so we shouldn't draw any conclusions ourselves. Kiire (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: He has been using hollow-point bullets (I have added this to the article with a source), but it doesn't say anything about any drugs in them. Kiire (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert request

A user with a username indicating his agenda, deleted the second part of a direct quote from a source (thus falsifying the quote)[5]. Please revert. JonFlaune (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 01:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Weapons

Does anyone know what he was armed with? New sources constantly say "automatic weapons" but I've also heard everything he had was legally owned.69.70.241.62 (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"The gunman in his 30s was described to be carrying a pistol and a rifle with telescopic sight." [6] DUMBELLS (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have done some research, but so far I can't find any reliable source for what type of weapon he used. Some eyewitnesses reported they saw an M16 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/bombing-shooting-at-political-rally-rocks-norway-capital-of-oslo/story-e6frg6so-1226100619876) while other reports simply mention "eine Glock-Pistole und ein automatisches Gewehr" (a Glock pistol and an automatic rifle) (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,776076,00.html). In one of the pictures in the appendix of the book that he allegedly wrote, he can be seen holding a rifle: http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/a3/d6/8335ba2c4d0684d736bd0a9dc4e8.jpeg I'm not a gun expert and the angle is rather unfortunate to identify the weapon, but I'm pretty sure that's not an M16. At least to me it looks more like a Ruger mini 14 (http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/firearms-images-products-437l.jpg for example) due to the four distinctive rows of holes at the front end of the barrel shroud as well as the front sight. There very well may be other weapons with these characteristics, but the mini 14 is simply the only one I can think of right now. The mini 14 would also (as far as I know) be in accordance with the gun laws in Norway, which according to the article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway#Types_of_civilian_owned_guns) ban all full auto weapons ("There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians [...]"), since its semi auto only. An M16 would be illegal to own by a civilian according to that law, since it's a fully automatic weapon (or rather a select fire with the option of either semi auto or full auto or depending on the version semi auto and burst).

Maybe someone with a more in depth knowledge can take a look at the picture and add some additional info about what weapon it might be.

There is also no evidence as of now, that links the weapon in that image to the actual shooting, but if it's actually the same guy in the picture and it's his gun, its save to at least consider the possibility that it's the gun that was used. 93.131.14.172 (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Media stated early on that he used a Glock, the guard who let him in mentioned a rifle with telescopic sight as well, but the police said machine pistol. There has also been reports of a shotgun. It's hard to get a consistent view of this, my guess would be a Glock pistol and an MP-5 machine pistol, which are used by Norwegian police and military. There are also plenty of hunting rifles, but it would be less useful weapon and more suspicious when impersonating a police officer. An M16 would be a lot harder to obtain. Ketil (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If the manifesto can be believed, he owned at least a Glock 34 handgun, and possibly also a Glock 17, as well as a Ruger Mini-14; both weapons legally acquired and registered with the appropriate authorities (he applied for and received permits for both in 2010). He also makes reference to owning a pump-action shotgun (make unspecified) and a .308 Winchester bolt-action rifle, both of these also legally owned. Some early eyewitness reports mentioned pistol, rifle, and shotgun; but current reporting do not repeat this claim. Police are only saying that he was apprehended with one “one-handed” weapon and one “two-handed” weapon (they're deliberately not giving further details). Sadly it seems stricter gun-control laws might have stopped him since he describes attempts to acquire firearms illegally (he really wanted a Ruger Mini-Thirty), but finding it difficult and eventually chickening out (due to all the unsavoury people he'd have to associate with). Anyways, there are, that I have found, no reliable sources for any of this yet, so for now this is just idle speculation (i.e. WP:NOR) and can not be added to the article. --Xover (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Ruger Mini-14 article states "Anders Behring Breivik owned and possibly used a Mini-14 in the shootout on Utøya." and links to this image (http://static01.vg.no/drfront/images/2011-07/23/88-98b88918-9b1830ae.jpeg) as a source. Maybe this should also be included in the article here? As mentioned above I agree with the assessment, that he gun in the image is a Ruger mini 14, but without a credible source identifying it as such, I feel somewhat reluctant to edit the article. I'm also by no means a regular editor and since this is an active article I don't feel confident enough to edit this. I've been using Wikipedia and read talk pages long enough to know when to stay clear XD 93.131.14.172 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a few corrections relating to the weapons used in the attack. 1) There is no such thing as a Glock 16, so I removed the '16.' 2) The Ruger Mini 14 does not use '30 magazine clips,' so I changed it to 30-round magazines. 3) Changed 'silencer' to suppressor, which is the correct name for the device used to muffle the sound of shooting.Systmtc (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible links to the EDL and other European far-right groups

This guardian article may be useful, as it treats Breivik's discussions with far-right and anti-Islamic groups such as the English Defence League. Sindinero (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one. Sindinero (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2 Islamist terrorist groups that took credit

This needs to be mentioned. It's very noteworthy that that happend.

Abu Suleiman al-Nasser and Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami both took credit.

http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/islamic-extremist-claims-responsibility-for-oslo-bombing-group-retracts/

http://drudgeretort.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/norway-attacked-by-islamic-right-wing-extremist-group/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.116.115 (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it's very noteworthy, these seem to pop out of the woodwork any time something happens. But yes, it's part of the story. There has also been some other arrests, one knife-carrying AUF member, one nutcase who phoned in support for ABB. Also armed police at the airports. Currently, there is no indication of involvement, but it illustrates the police response and is part of the story IMHO. My edits get reverted though, so I guess this is contentious? Ketil (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's noteworthy to mention a claim then say it was a lie, according to theforeigner, and the second source is just a personal blog. Please bring a reliable source for any further suggestions. Good work everyone... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Right wing?

There are multiple references to "right wing" in the article. However, this is an inherently vague term that is open to all manner of interpretation. Nazism and Libertarianism are both regularly described as "right wing" ideologies, and they have virtually nothing in common. Indeed, "right wing" seems to be a term used to describe anything a reporter doesn't agree with. I suggest that the use of the term "right wing" is inappropriate for this article. Deterence ^Talk 08:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the term is originating from reports on his own social media pages and from the few statements police have made about his interrogation. Given his professed stances, the term is certainly accurate, even if not exactly specific. We're now starting to get more significant details about his political affiliations so no doubt other terms will start making their way into the article to replace the more generic ones in some places, but for now I'd say it's entirely appropriate. Oh and just a little FYI that you might find useful - libertarianism has an entirely different meaning throughout most of Europe than it does in the United States; whereas in the U.S. it refers to a kind of ultra-deregulationist, somewhat conservative philosophy (as you alluded to) in Europe the term tends to refer to a political school of thought closer to social democracy, socialism and anarcho-syndicalism. So really almost a diametrically opposite viewpoint. Not really relevant to the current discussion, but thought it might save you some miscommunication down the road. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

Right-wing terrorism has a far more precise meaning. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe him as a Christian fundamentalist, far-right Zionist and Islamophobe.([7] and others) I think we can replace "right-wing" with more accurate descriptions. JonFlaune (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources also describe him as right-wing in addition to those other attributes. In fact, virtually every news article I've read describes him as such, as have police (currently cite #56), so it would make little sense to exclude the term from the article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, agreed. Where more specific terms are called for, they should be used, but not to the exclusion of the broader term. The fact is, the man's beliefs read like a comprehensive list of the cornerstones of radical far-right philosophies; cultural and ethnic purity, extreme religious fundamentalism (and just about every cliche under this header from religious xenophobia, the role of religion in states and determining social order, the role of women, contempt for homosexuality, the list goes on and on here) condemnation of even slightly left-leaning political philosophies, strong pro-weapon views, ect. If ever there was a man who qualified for the term right-leaning, this is him. At the same time, I do understand where the reservations are coming from here -- as with any occasion that a person under such a broad ideological header commits such heinous acts, those who nominally share that affiliation reasonably want to make an distinction between such extremism and the milder and presumably peaceful form of that philosophy which they themselves practice. Bearing that in mind, I suggest a liberal application of qualifiers such as "extreme" and "radical" in many of the cases where we must use the term "right-wing." It will be entirely accurate and hopefully will go some ways to making the description more palatable to those who consider themselves on the right but who abhor such acts (which of course is the vast majority of people on the right). 67.117.27.49 (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

Number of injured

The number of injured has been updated to 67 at Utøya, and 30 in Oslo. Source: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080693 (QUOTE) - Det er 67 har vært eller er til behandling etter Utøya-angrepet og 30 har vært eller er til behandling etter bomben i Oslo. Av de som er skadet etter bombeeksplosjonen, er mellom ni og ti alvorlig skadet, sier Sponheim. (END QUOTE) Translation: 67 people have been or are being treated after the Utøya attack, and 30 have been or are being treated after the Oslo bomb. From the bomb injuries, 9 or 10 are seriously injured. Kiire (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Done (on infobox) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

It still says 11 and 19 in the infobox. Kiire (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry :( I was counting the dead and thought someone updated it. I guess I need to head to sleep (it's 4am), but it's fixed now (including the translation) :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) Kiire (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian Terrorist

The video that he published is clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwp2FnRmsE&skipcontrinter=1 He is a Christian terrorist. He's not a guy who happens to be Christian. His Christianity, as he understood it, played a significant role in his desire to kill the "cultural marxists" who were, as he saw it, working to weaken Christendom and the "cultural purity" of Norway. His whole shtick is to get rid of the Muslims because he saw them as a threat to Norway's cultural and religious (Christian) purity. He was a member of the "Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon." His video told Christians to be like the crusaders and battle the Muslims, join a local Templar group, and rely on the virtues of the crusaders and other people who had battled Muslims in the name of Christianity. In the video he also hated on feminism, multiculturalism, Marxism, Obama, and all the usual stuff you usually find amongst right-winger Christians in the United States. He is a Christian terrorist with religio-political supremacist ideology 66.188.228.180 (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Christian terrorism#Oslo, Norway Christian Terrorism for a discussion of this point. "what else could it be" is not sufficient grounds for Wikipedia, we need a Reliable source. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be ok, by NY-Times. They're just not sure if he's linked to a large network or not, tho. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. You won't accept the actual manifesto which has 'christ' 500 times in the first 200 pages of his manifesto, or the Youtube video he sent out declaring a Christian war against Muslims explicitly calling for a Christian crusade against Muslims. Fine. Well, accept the NY-Times article then, mentioned above, in it, it reads: "...left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination." That is Christian terrorism. 66.188.228.180 (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

" The Bible tells us that we are now all good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Whether we want to face up to it or not, we are all living in a war zone as a result of the curse of Adam and Eve that is still in full operation on this earth. Anyone of us at anytime can come under human or demonic attack. The daily news will prove that to you without any shadow of a doubt. Each Christian must now make their own personal decision on all of this. You can either choose to learn how to rise up in the power of your Lord and Saviour and learn how to become a true warrior in the Lord, or you can continue to keepyour head in the sand and oppressor after oppressor keep beating you down. The choice is yours. " -Christian terrorist of Oslo, Norway (Manifesto, p. 1390). " By propagating and defending Christendom we simply mean that we want to halt the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist attacks and systematic deconstruction on our Christian cultures and the Church itself and to reverse the de-Christianisation of Europe." (Manifesto, p.1352)

" Although the PCCTS, Knights Templar is a pan-European indigenous rights movement we give all Europeans, regardless of skin colour, the opportunity to become a Justiciar Knight as long as the individual is either a Christian, Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist. " (Manifesto, p. 820) 66.188.228.180 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On his Facebook page, Breivik described himself as both conservative and Christian. In a 2009 online post, he wrote: "Today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic." http://www.courant.com/mobile/hc-campbell-terrorist-0726-20110726,0,6453552.column 66.188.228.180 (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo in "Oslo Bombing"

2nd paragraph. "chock wave" should read "shock wave"

 Done (though not by me). Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Progress Party "right-wing"

English is not my first language so excuse for the typos. But I find that some edits are saying that the Progress Party of Norway is a "right-wing" party, but on the progress party page I can't find sources that say this and also the evidence on this page doesn't say so either. Also, right-wing I think is a peacock term and so it shouldn't be used since Wikipedia says you cannot type this stuffs. Festermunk (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is rather uncontroversial in Norway that FrP is a right wing party. E.g. this link says "The Progress party has from beginning been the most right-aligned party in Norway, inspired by the Danish Progress Party". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry i cannot read norweigian language so I cannot see where it says the progress party is right-wing. Also, it says right-aligned, not right-wing so when you edits it you must be careful.Festermunk (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Or is Anders realy a lefty who faked his rightness?16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Progress Party is an anti-immigration far-right party according to The Daily Telegraph[8]. But, as the Telegraph states:

"Since Siv Jensen became leader in 2006 the Progress Party has made efforts to tone down its extremist image. Whereas mainstream party once shunned the fringe group, the centre-right Conservatives have recently considered co-operating."

JonFlaune (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

and this "toning down" seems to be why he left the party, or dissociated himself from it. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it also seems likely to me that he received plenty of encouragement to leave. In his C.V., part of his manifesto which can be found above under the "Description, apparently in his own words" section, he claims to have been a serious contender for a spot on the Oslo City Council:

"I came relatively close to being elected but was not among the final contestants due to the fact that the Progress Party Youth (lead by my rival Jøran Kallmyr) refused, for strategical reasons, to support my candidature. At the time I was more popular than Jøran but needed the support of the youth organisation (an organisation I had been a part of for a few years). I don’t blame him for backstabbing me like that though. After all, he had invested so much more of his time to the organisation than I had. He deserved it while I didn’t and I would probably have done the same thing if I was him."

But honestly, as with other claims he's made in these writings it strikes me as likely that he is talking himself up. I'm more inclined to believe he was never a serious candidate with any degree of support and was finally made to understand that he wasn't going to be receiving any, but is in utter denial about why he wasn't elected. It's interesting to note also that he perceives that a youth organization betrayed him... 67.117.27.49 (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

Notable anniversary of King David Hotel bombing

It should be noted that the bombing and massacre occurred on 65th anniversary of King David Hotel bombing, which killed over 90 people. --Magabund (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of the date, it is highly probable that it will be on the anniversary of something. The July 22 article gives many things which happened on this date. Unless there is any connection between the King David Hotel bombing and these attacks, apart from the coincidence that they are on the same date, I see no good reason to mention this. (In contrast, Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing both happening on April 20 is a different matter, since the latter attack was largely a retaliation against the former.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The terrorist's worldview was characterized by "extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism, and venomous attacks on Marxism and multiculturalism" according to The Jerusalem Post[9]. The killer "espoused new right-wing, pro-Israel philosophy"[10] according to JTA. Right-wing Zionism was a motivating factor. The anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing is highly relevant and should be mentioned. There is a clear ideological link between the two terrorist attacks. (I think we can effectively rule out the possibility that this was a coincidence.) JonFlaune (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like OR to me 90.213.139.19 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If the killer actually said the King David Hotel bombing anniversary was part of the reason for choosing the date then fine. But if not then no (okay if a large number of reliable sources discuss the connection to the date even if the killer never has then may be as well) Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate" shooting

Contradicted by witnesses who say he was purposeful in target selection. --68.81.167.181 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If indiscriminate means he didn't care which people he shot, then yes he was. If if means he was just firing randomly at people and trees and buildings, then no he wasn't. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But surely we could chalk this up to berserkergang, couldn't we? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How so? Witnesses say he seemed calm and in control of himself. Totnesmartin (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New important info

I just read two new articles, one (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080715) says that the shooter used hollow point ammunition to cause as much damage as possible, and another article (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080712) says that a police officer stationed at the island was killed by the shooter. I don't have the time to translate it and add it myself, so I'm hoping someone else can do it. Kiire (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I've got the time to do it myself. Kiire (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Added now (although more can probably added from the articles) 2011_Norway_attacks#Belligerent.27s_attack Kiire (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is probably just hunting ammunition - which would probably be easier or less suspicious to get than FMJ military ammunition. Ketil (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Link 1

(machine translation)

(AP) Anders Behring Breivik should have used special ammunition to do the most damage when he started the massacre Utøya. AP follows

   The terrorist attacks 22 July 

More and more gruesome detail draws an ever clearer picture of Breivik as a cold, calculating killer .

The last report from the drama on Utøya, makes the picture even clearer:

Chief Surgeon Colin Poole at Ringerike Hospital, where at least 16 of the victims have been treated for gunshot wounds. He claims that Breivik used dumb-dumb bullets during the massacre.

- This is not the balls you can buy over the counter in Norway, says Poole to VG Nett.

It was said yesterday that first wrote about Poole statements.

- These balls more or less exploded inside the body of the victims. All energy from the bullets were transferred to the tissue, says Poole said.

- The internal injuries they had sustained was absolutely terrible, he says.

Faced AP emphasizes that Poole

- The fragments are so tiny that I have never seen anything like it.

Dumdum bullets are specially designed to deform when it hits the target to create the most damage. Dumdum bullets have such a tremendous effect on people that it is completely forbidden among military forces.

Expanding ammunition, in Norwegian called blyspiss or hole tip ammunition is required by big-game hunting in Norway, because it increases the chance that the animal is killed, according to Wikipedia.

- Dumdum bullets are a bit old-fashioned collective term for all expanding ammunition. I am even big-game hunter,

At least 86 killed in massacre Utøya, among them a police officer who was hired as a guard at the AUF-camp . Most of them were victims of Breivik's bullets. Some may also have drowned when they swam for their lives to escape.

The surgeon, who must have worked at the hospital for 26 years, says that the major internal injuries caused major problems for the trauma teams at Ringerike Hospital.

- As one thousand pinpricks

- It has given us all sorts of additional problems with the type of damage they have caused, with a very special ball courts. The effect inside the body is like thousands of pins and needles, says Poole.

The picture that Anders Behring Breivik has posted posing him with what looks like a Ruger Mini-14 rifle.

He describes his own manifesto how he acquired the gun legally after having been on a failed drive to Prague to buy an automatic rifle. The picture shows that he has attached special equipment on the rifle.

- It looks as if he has attached flashlight, bayonet and laser sight on the race, said one weapons expert told VG Nett.

In addition, there is attached a so-called monopod on the gun that can be used as support.

- It also looks like he has a rødpunkt-view in addition to a magnifying device, says weapons expert.

Behring Breivik describes himself in the manifesto hvorden a gun smith did trigger mechanism smoother.

A Ruger Mini 14 is a licensed hunting rifle in Norway, but the civilian weapon that can mimic most of the military. It is semi-automatic, which means you can fire the shot after shot without taking the new charging handle. Behring Breivik writes that he ordered special magazines for 30 cartridges.

Link 2

Link 2 says (machine translation, sorry: (AP) The police officer who was hired as a guard at the AUF-camp on Utøya, was killed by the perpetrator. AP follows

   The terrorist attacks 22 July 

The policeman had been a guard at the camp for several years and was also this year hired the so-called "private paid overtime." The official works normally in the Police Immigration Unit.

He was hired in private, was unarmed and had no protective equipment.

The program AUF had sent out in advance of the camp was that there would be police at Utøya. At a press conference Sunday night, police confirmed that there was an official on the island since the terrorist accused Anders Behring Breivik attacked.

- There has been a police officer in private paid overtime that would seem like garrisons on Utøya. We can confirm, said Deputy Police Chief Sveinung Sponheim in the Oslo police.

- Where was he?

- We do not know, what we get clarified through the investigation, said Sponheim.

VG know that the police officer is one of the victims after Utøya tragedy. The next of kin are notified. The police informed not about the policeman's condition at the press conference, but the VG has chosen to presiere that he is killed to avoid speculation. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.203.236.78, 24 July 2011

7 have been killed. should be changed to 93 have been confirmed dead.

66.203.236.78 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It already says Death(s): 7 (Oslo), 86 (Utøya), Total: 93 Kiire (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Witness Accounts

Here are links to the some accounts of witnesses of the shooting: (in Norwegian)

http://www.nrk.no/video/gjerningsmannen_valgte_og_la_adrian_pracon_leve/617A8569F7EE130B/

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/ostafjells/telemark/1.7725435

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7723955

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.7725415

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/sorlandet/1.7725249

I thought they might be relevant, but are uncertain of how to integrate their information into the article. --Painocus (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The needed citation in the "Possible accomplices" section

This URL is an interview (in Norwegian) with three survivors, at least one of which claim that there must have been more than one shooter. The authors of the article (Jarle Brenna , Gordon Andersen , Morten Hopperstad , Bjørnar Tommelstad , Rune Thomas Ege and Tor-Erling Thømt Ruud) also write that several survivors they have spoken to claim this. http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080627 From the Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang, retrieved 2011-07-24.

Torbjorn Bjorkman (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Torbjörn Björkman

Citation added Kiire (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, there might have been more than one berserker on Utoya. Good to see someone taking note of that. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks within quotations

As I've just pointed out at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik, we should not put Wikilinks onto words within quotations, as this violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader". There is no need whatsoever to link such terms 'Pro-gay, or 'Israel' in any case, under WP:OVERLINK - Our readers will know what such words mean. I am going to remove any such links, and ask that people do not reinsert them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Steroids

I've read several news accounts that stated that he used steroids. Since steroids cause paranoia, psychosis and overt aggressiveness, I think his use of anabolic steroids should be included as a causal contributing factor. 69.236.142.83 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to his book iz was a 9 year planning and he only took steroids in the final year.--89.143.114.225 (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Over categorisation

I just used HotCat to remove Category:2011 in Norway, Category:Terrorism in Norway and Category:Terrorist incidents in 2011 because all three are children of, and thus redundant to, Category:Terrorist incidents in Norway in 2011.

I also removed Category:Zionist terrorism both because there is no citation in the article to support it; and it is unlikely that a Christian fundamentalist would be a Zionist, as we define it in out article on Zionism.

All those removals have been reverted. Why? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted them, as I only saw 4 edits by a script with no reason given. You should specify a reason as to why you are removing something. I have not looked deeper in to the categories, so I'll take your word for it, I only reverted it because I thought it was a malicious script or something. Kiire (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

HotCat is widely used; if you have issues with how it works I suggest you raise them in its talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

Then I apologize, I don't edit much here. But the edit summary is there for a reason, you shouldn't blame others for not having a proper reason. I'm sure you can understand how it looks wrong for a "newbie" like me when 4 categories are just removed with no reason given. Kiire (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "blame others for not having a proper reason", I said "if you have issues with how [HotCat] works I suggest you raise them in its talk page". that advice still stands. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are blaming them indirectly by telling me "that's how HotCat works", when you are the one editing the article. It doesn't matter if you use a script or you are editing it by hand, you should still leave a reason (or at least comment it on the talk page, which you didn't do until I reverted your edits). I don't care anymore though, and you obviously fail to see my point. Kiire (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Zionist?

File:Pears-Soap-barbox.jpg

Among the things that Wikipedia isn't, there is the soapbox. So do like the soap in the picture, and get out of the soap box. Besides, is better when you are neekid™.

Are you serious? This guy's basically a nutcase so calling him a "Zionist" is about as correct as calling David Koresh "Jesus". The source given does not call him a Zionist either - that's a pure invention by some Wikipedia editor. And since this is breaking news I'd be very very careful about attributing such controversial labels to anyone until such a moniker is widely reported in reliable sources (which, obviously, it's not going to be, since the contention is plainly ridiculous).

Another reason why Wikipedia shouldn't try to cover news. WP:NOTNEWS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, why not just describe him as a Knight Templar? I'm sure there's sources for that. Seriously, this is just highlighting how pathetic Wikipedia can be sometimes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Until the sitiation is better understood, why not just say he appears to be associated with "several different ideologies?" 173.247.29.132 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He's a Viking. He comes from that part of the world, right? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He's right, Aders is a modern day Viking as well as a Christian fundie.82.11.90.90 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe him as a Christian fundamentalist, a far-right Zionist and an Islamophobe.[11] Possibly there are other descriptions. There is no doubt he held what the Jerusalem Post calls "far-right Zionist" views, and this is both properly sourced and a crucial point (se this article in the Financial Times). JonFlaune (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That source does not describe him as a "Zionist". It just says that his manifesto has "Zionist" stuff in it. It is not at all crucial. It is not anymore crucial than the fact that he called for Knights Templar to rise again or something. Just leave this junk out until a clearer picture emerges. This is an encyclopedia not a sensationalist tabloid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And your FT link doesn't have crap about "Zionists" in it so I don't know what in the world you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources point out far-right Zionist/pro-Israel views, along with Christian fundamentalism and Islamophobia, as the central components of his worldview. This has been discussed before, and is widely reported by reliable sources. JonFlaune (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What multiple sources?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And there are also multiple sources which point out pro-Knight Templar views, so why aren't you putting that in the article? This is amazingly stupid. The guy is a nutzoid. You can't pigeon hole him into some category just to score some political points.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is a self-described Zionist, as reported by the JTA: JTA: Norway killer espoused right-wing philosophy claiming to be Zionist. This has also been reported by the Jerusalem Post and other sources. And we ALREADY have Christian fundamentalist in the lead, that covers the Knight Templars etc. JonFlaune (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is a self-described Knight Templar for fuck's sake!!!!!!! Stop it. You're a new (?) account and this kind of politically charged sensationalism is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what these "reliable sources" say, anyone who has taken more than a cursory glance at his manifesto would see that he is not a Zionist nor a Christian fundamentalist (though he is pro-Israel and a Christian). His main schtick is anti-multiculturalism, specifically in regards to Islam. Lazy reporting does not change what the perpetrator himself has described as his motivation. --Imperialles (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He has several shticks, not just one. We describe all of them, which are described by reliable sources, and mention the most important ones in the lead. He has himself described what he considers most important, and supporting Israel is one of them, in fact it may be the motivating factor for killing almost hundred members of a party he considers to be pro-Palestinian. JonFlaune (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And that right there is classic original research: supporting Israel ... may be the motivating factor for killing almost hundred members of a party he considers to be pro-Palestinian. . In other words, this is shit which you yourself just made up on the spot right now. And btw, for someone who just began editing Wikipedia, you're awfully familiar with the procedures. Please, someone just take all this junk out, the Zionism, the Christian fundamentalism and everything else. Not only is it undue and pov but it's also insulting to the victims, having them hijacked like that for some unrelated political purpose. If we have to have an article on this thing then just stick to the facts and eschew all the motivations crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

From the manifesto: "Q: If you were to coin a word for the ideology or movement you represent, what would it be?" "Cultural conservatism or a nationalist/conservative direction known as the Vienna school of thought. As for the political movement; I would describe it as a National Resistance Movement, an Indigenous Rights Movement or perhaps a Conservative Revolutionary Movement. Justiciar Knights are not an ideologically homogenous group. Many Justiciar Knight Commanders would probably reject some of my personal views as I would with theirs. Some are deeply Christian while some are Christian agnostics or even atheists. Some are individualists while others not so much so, some puritans. The primary factors that unites us is that we are all nationalists, anti-Marxist, anti-Islam(isation), we support indigenous rights and we are revolutionary, willing to martyr ourselves." I know that Breivik is pro-Israel, but his actions cannot be said to be in any part motivated by Zionism or the state of Israel. --Imperialles (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Until the situation is better understood, why not just say he appears to be associated with "several different ideologies?" LET'S NOT give him a victory by taking sides regarding his paranoid psychotic world-view. He is an obviously sick product of our society, I hope you will all fight the urge to participate in his insanity.173.247.29.132 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the manifesto just the babelings of a fool?82.11.90.90 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Serbs, London, 2002

"At the centre of the inquiry is the maniac’s claim that there was a 2002 London ‘summit’ of far-Right fundamentalists from across Europe, including two Britons." Source: Did Norwegian maniac plot his gun rampage in London? As death toll rises to 93, extremist reveals chilling UK link Should this be included to part about preparation of the attack, or is it more into the biography article? It definitely made a mark on him, but can this be directly connected to the preparation? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, we don't know how much of the "Manifesto" is even true. A lot of this would need to be corroborated. Presumably at some point his travel will be documented, but the citation only refers to his manifesto, which is known to contain many claims not likely true.71.252.101.199 (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

German tourist saving 30 lives

I think the following information is worthy to be included in the narrative of the shootings: "Norway shooting: German tourist hailed a hero after saving 30 lives ... A German tourist has been hailed a hero after sailing straight into the line of gunfire to save up to 30 lives during Norway's brutal massacre.(...)" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658437/Norway-shooting-German-tourist-hailed-a-hero-after-saving-30-lives.html AugustinMa (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be added immediately, given the source is a decent one (though a second wouldn't hurt). God knows we could certainly use a little news about such selflessness in the face of all this horror. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Poor arguement. Wikipedia is not here to change the world, only to report it. I think there's some policy about it. If anything I'd use the arguement that it's a quite significant contribution, but to TBH I don't think the information is that interesting to readers. There were 700 kids on the island. --84.234.215.241 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Saving 30 lives is certainly a "significant contribution". Also, I think this kind of information would be very interesting to the readers. The story makes the contrast between the inhuman shooting and the humanity of the German tourist coming within range (?) of the shooter in order to save lives. I say it is very relevant to the narrative of the article. AugustinMa (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good arguement, I'm convinced. --84.234.215.241 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Because this has been published in a reliable source - in particular, a notable mainstream news organization - it is certainly worthy of inclusion. It meets WP:V, and as long as it isn't given undue weight when added to the article (a simple mention of the facts reported should do), it's perfectly fine. Whether you think it's very interesting is merely a personal opinion, and personal opinions aren't what we use to write articles. John Shandy` • talk 14:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The content is valid on the merit of it's noteworthyness. The fact that it's good news is just a bonus. Nobody claimed it should go in solely on the merit of it being a bright upturn. Don't fill in what is left unsaid with your own assumptions. Snow Rise (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A BBC article I read yesterday described him as a "tourist" then further down said he was a Norwegian resident, the opposite of a tourist.

Heroic actions, regardless.

Varlaam (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added something about this, doing my best to clarify the tourist part (German resident of Norway on holiday at a vacation spot) Wnt (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good job, Wnt. The narrative is quite good. Thanks. AugustinMa (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing 1st paragraph following preamble - Preparation

Paragraph suggest that the attacker held a "parralel life" to mask his preparation to the attacks: playing video games, blogging, listening to Europop, watching True blood and eating with his mother".

This paragraph is confusing a "parallel life" with keeping the preparations "secret". A husband who secretly marries two women has a parrallel life, same for a policeman who accepts bribres from criminals. In this case, the attacker simply lived his own life up to the moment of committing the attacks. Listening to TV, music and eating with your mother cannot be said to be "parrallel" to anything.

"Parallel" is in line with the way the source calls it.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I likewise see this entire section to be completely irrelevant. The description of a persons hobbies, which from reading the manifesto, were not used as a cover but rather as simply part of his day to day life, this is not relevant to the Norway Attacks.

I won't even go into detail about why I find the last paragraph to be excruciatingly poor. In no way, shape or form, is his personal opinion on the attractiveness of women in a city relevant to this article.

I'm not going to immediately edit the article myself, but someone should completely revise the entire "preparation" section, or preferably scrap it as a whole. It feels like filler material, not actual relevant material. 121.217.219.244 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP address. I cannot imagine how playing video games or watching TV is in any way notable, or qualifies under "preparation". The entire section needs a major rewrite if not being just dumped. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Note to Andy the Grump

If you want to write your own article called "Christian fundamentalism", be my guest. The current article called Fundamentalist Christianity is about a historical religious movement specific to the USA. How can it be "broadened" to be less US-specific? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are seriously suggesting that 'Fundamentalist Christianity' is an exclusively US-based phenomenon, then fine, the article should discuss that. I think, however, that there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. If a Norwegian policeman uses the term in a way that doesn't accord with your narrow definition, this is a problem with you and/or the article, not him. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of defining the meaning of phrases. I have already stated that I don't think the phrase should be Wikilinked within quotes, for the very good reason that this is explicitly discouraged by policy, but if we are going to have any pretence to be an international project, our articles need to reflect broad global concepts, not the concerns of the Southern Baptist Church. Like I said, fix the article (however it is named). Either that, or at least try to come up with less ridiculous edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, didn't you define "Christian fundamentalist" from a European pov as a "Christian (crackpot) extremist"? How does that definition have anything in common with the article on Fundamentalist Christianity? That's the issue here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't 'define it' as such. I merely indicated that my own personal opinion (which I believe you asked for) was that was how the term might be perceived in Britain. I don't know what the term implies in a Norwegian context, which is the source of the phrase. You do seem to be suffering from a failure of logic here though. If our article doesn't match the usage of a phrase, the problem is with our article, not the usage. The Norwegian policeman clearly didn't intend to suggest that ABB was a Southern Baptist, but something broader (or entirely different) - like I say, the problem seems to be with our article. An extensive rewrite might take rather a long time, but a simple note at the beginning to clarify the US-centric bias of the article would perhaps provide a stopgap. (and as an aside, do you have any particular grounds for assuming that I necessarily consider the terms "Christian (crackpot) extremist" and "Southern Baptist" to be mutually exclusive? - Only kidding - but think about it. The Norwegian cop has no more reason to understand the particulars of US theological distinctions than Southern Baptists do of Norway. Nobody has a monopoly of phrases, or of perceptions of outsiders...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy is correct about the definition: it was Teiresia's definition that I quoted, not Andy's. "Christian (crackpot) extremist in the European context" --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the Fundamentalist Christianity article should be the same in scope as the Islamic fundamentalism article. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 04:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If the current article doesn't reflect the fact that the term has a broader context then that is simply a glaring oversight on the part of its author's (though of course they were probably just describing it as best they could within the context they knew and with the sources available to them), and the article should either be renamed "Fundamentalist Christianity in North America" or augmented by further context for the rest of the Christian world. Regardless, the concept is one that certainly applies to a European context, and as any english speaker from Europe could tell you the term itself would be readily recognized. In any event, creating a second article treating the same basic phenomena and naming it "Christian Fundamentalism" seems like the most ridiculous, inaccurate, confusing and counterproductive solution to the issue that I can imagine, especially when Fundamentalist Christianity article designates, in the very first sentence, that the two terms are synonyms. In any event, Andy's use of the term (in this section at least; I don't know where or how this argument began) is consistent with it's widely accepted meaning and the way it's been described so-far here on Wikipedia (regardless of however much you thought it only applied to an American phenomena). Snow Rise (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly explain how the term is understood in Norway: a “Christian fundamentalist“ would be a fundamentalist (as opposed to, say, a modernist) who in his strict adherence to specific theological doctrines happened to be picking among the Christian doctrines rather then Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist theological doctrines. In fact, often the term will be understood to encompass both Christian and Jewish doctrines. I realize that some Christian groups have appropriated this term to describe their own doctrines and thus would be horrified when the same term is applied to someone like ABB, but here one must address the plain meaning of the words and not get lost in semantic impedance. --Xover (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well put Xover. And the definition you give is basically consistent with how an American would phrase it. Not that I expected it would be otherwise. The concept is so widely distributed throughout the western world, from what I've observed, that virtually anyone could recognize the central idea via some quasi-cognate in their own language. And given that such a large segment of the Norwegian populace speaks English more or less fluently, there's bound to be even more of a 1:1 correlation. Of course, we're gonna need sources to put the issue to bed now. A pity, it's one of those things that I would have thought would have been accepted on face value, but now that the issue is raised it has to be dealt with explicitly.Snow (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One reason we're having this discussion is because "Christian fundamentalist" and "Fundmentalist Christian" are NOT synonyms. ABB is clearly not a Fundamentalist as described in the FC article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

None of this is particularly relevant to this article. I'd suggest that problems with the Fundamentalist Christianity article should be discussed there. If nothing else, it needs to make clear that it is only referring to a particular, narrow interpretation of the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant if folks keep linking "Christian fundamentalist" to the wiki article about American Fundamentalism. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Except it's not titled American Fundementalist Christianity. And see, right there, you just switched the word order you keep claiming is so important for distinguishing between two concepts. You wrote " American [Christian] Fundamentalism, rather that American Fundamentalist Christianity... Anyway, as I said before, one solution is to rename the title of the page, since you seem keen to keep it solely about the phenomena in America in particular. But the place to suggest that change is on the discussion page for that article, not here. And then of course someone is going to have to write a new article to cover the concept on a more global scale. I honestly think the best route is to make one page for Christian Fundamentalism/Fundamentalist Christianity (if/when we can convince you they are the same thing or if you get vastly out-voted) and then sections for the history of the movement/ideologies throughout the world. Regardless, can we please take it over there? This page is already too crowded as is. Snow (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right, it's not. And I'm only just now realizing he followed you back from the other page to debate the matter here. I favour removing this entire discussion from this talk page and pasting it to Fundamentalist Christianity. Something tells me he's going to object though.Snow 21:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of a distinction being made between the two based on word order and which is the noun vs. adjective. In fact, I'm at a loss to bring to mind a single example in English where that would be the case. And what makes your assertion even more bizarre is that even the article you are defending so fervently uses its first seven words to make clear that the terms are interchangeable. And I quote:

"Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism..."

No offense, but your stance here reeks of personal research. But if you can please provide sources to support your claim, I'll gladly eat my words, because I would find the situation linguistically unique and interesting. Snow 21:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs)

Xover, I think something to consider here is that ABB does not appear to be driven by "Christian" concerns; instead, he is anti-immigration/etc. It is more of a cultural Christian thing, rather than a fundamentalist Christian thing. "Fundamentalist Christian" or "Christian fundamentalist" or however you want to say it (I don't think there's any difference, despite what Kenatipo says) is a very overloaded term. It can describe someone who likes the book The Fundamentals (what is described at Fundamentalist Christianity), it can more generally describe "really hardcore Christian" as fleshed out at fundamentalism, or it can be a careless phrase used—as in this case—to describe a "christian terrorist" or something along those lines. I think the article as it stands now is a good take on this; it reports the description, elaborates on whether it is true, and finally does not confusingly link to Fundamentalist Christianity. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Eric, it's a tough call. You make some very good points and I keep coming back to the point that it remains vague whether Breivik even considers himself a Christian. On the other hand, he clearly supports the idea of a society directly governed by traditional Christian ideology. Certainly that qualifies him at least a little as a supporter of Christian fundamentalism? The problem lays in the perplexing vagueries of Breivik's language when he talks about these things. He reminds me of nothing quite so much as the type of would-be intellectual you sometimes see at university level who tries to cover for the fact that they really have nothing of significance to say by employing overly-wrought language as camouflage. The more I read of the thing -- the manifesto, that is -- the more convinced I become that either A) even he doesn't know what he's trying to say half the time or B) he's trying to manipulate and confuse. We shouldn't lose site of the fact that we're dealing with a demented mind. But even if he were the soul of sanity, his manifesto is a primary source and we can't draw information from it, and should in fact not allow it to influence the content of the article at all. We call him what our sources call him, and they almost uniformly are comfortable with the label fundamentalist christian, so it's fair game -- and in fact appropriate -- for the article to note this. Snow (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It seemed pretty clear that he considers himself a Christian; or at least that he would use that label for himself. The ibtimes reference quotes him "This makes us Christian". Although he says he is not religious, so the "fundamentalist" label is very odd. Now, why do you say he "clearly supports the idea of a society directly governed by traditional Christian ideology"? I couldn't find any of the sources in this article that back that up, although I might have missed it. The article states it, linking to Dominionism, but doesn't seem to have a source. I don't agree that the sources "almost uniformly are comfortable with the label fundamentalist christian". They report that the Norwegian policeman used that phrase, however. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Without diving too deep, note that Fundamentalist Christianity as known from the U.S. is a profoundly Protestant movement - its defining characteristic is the insistence of adherents on following the Bible strictly, without interpretation by anyone let alone priests and popes. It is not uncommon to hear some of the more devoted adherents (e.g. Seventh Day Adventist) put on long presentations explaining why the Pope is actually the Antichrist. The Knights Templar which Breivik idolizes were a Catholic organization... well, an excommunicated and suppressed Catholic organization. Whether Breivik is Catholic or Protestant looks like it is an ongoing media flamewar, with a bell, book and candle set aside for him beside every altar, but his main claim to Protestantism seems to be that he was baptized in the Church of Norway at 15. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR regarding islamophobia

I don't have time to list the diffs, but PassaMethod's repeated removal of the term Islamophobia and similar terms from 2011 Norway attacks, against apparent community consensus, appears to be way beyond 3RR. I've asked him to desist, and bring the matter to this talk page if he wishes to pursue it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The same seems to apply to the same user's repeated addition of Stop the Islamisation of Norway. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Faulty text on picture

"Personal office building of the Norwegian Prime Minister with blown-out windows shortly after the explosion." It gives the impression that this whole house is the "Personal office building of the Norwegian Prime Minister", which is wrong. His office is just one of the hundreds of offices in this government building. Roger491127 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Fixed now. For reference, the relevant building (Høyblokka, "The Highrise") houses the Office of the Prime Minister and Ministry of Justice and the Police. You can find more descriptions of the various buildings in the article on Regjeringskvartalet ("The Government Quarter"). --Xover (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Trial

Unless I've missed it, we don't seem to have anything about ABB's court appearance this week. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I have added a line about his court hearing yesterday. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Insane

His attorney have declared the perpetrator insane (as a defence tactics). I'll take a look for relevant sources. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Retracted. The attorney hints that he awaits a medical examination that may indicate insanity (sinnsjuk). Not notable enough. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

An expert in the field said in Swedish television that the probability that Breivik would be considered insane is practically zero. In Sweden he would have a much better, but still very slight, chance of being considered insane, because, he explained, there are basically four different systems concerning declaring criminals insane, so they are put in an insane asylum for a time the doctors determine instead of in jail for a certain number of years. Sweden uses a fairly liberal system but Norway uses a very restricted system, where you have to be obviously and totally brain damaged to be considered insane.

And, by the way, the maximum sentence of 21 years in Norway can in certain cases, when the person is still considered a threat to society, like Breivik, be prolonged by for example 10 years, and then 10 years more, and then 10 years more, etc.. So, according to this expert, Breivik will probably never get out of jail. Roger491127 (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you did not misquote him, this so-called expert clearly isn't one. If ABB receives a 30-year sentence (possible if he is charged with and found guilty of crimes against humanity), he will be eligible for parole after 20 years. If he is sentenced to 21 years in prison (maximum penalty for all other cases), he will be eligible for parole after 14 years. If he is sentenced to containment (“forvaring”), he will be eligible for parole after 10 years, and have a much better chance of being released early on good behavior than if sentenced to hard time. A containment sentence may, in theory, be prolonged indefinitely in five-year increments (not ten), but only as long as the prisoner is still considered a menace to society. In any case, it is customary to grant an early release to prisoners in declining health, so there is practically zero chance of ABB serving a literal life sentence. DES (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you are right, you seem to know what you are talking about. To my defense I can say that I have heard from several sources that 21 years is the maximum sentence you can get in Norway and that is probably what ABB will get. Obviously these sources did not know that you can get a 30 years sentence (for crimes against humanity). I knew that prisoners in general, in both Sweden and Norway are eligible for parole after two thirds of the sentence, but I doubt very much that ABB will get out after only 20 years. Considering the severity of the crimes and the national trauma caused he cannot get less than 30 years. After that it will depend very much on how much his personality and views have changed. If the authorities in Norway, and the Norwegian people, are very sure that he has changed completely he has a chance to get out before he gets very old. People in jail usually preserve their health very well, because they eat good food regularly and train, so that he would be released based on health reason will hardly happen before he is very old. Roger491127 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik in diving suit with gun (self portrait).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik in diving suit with gun (self portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Interested editors may like to express an opinion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik in diving suit with gun (self portrait).jpg. WWGB (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Restore the page, please

Someone's going way overboard with the pruning sheers to this discussion page. Over 3/4 of the page disappeared into archives recently. Some of that we could afford to lose -- some sections were complete conjecture/opinion discussions with no sourcing whatsoever, many were resolved issues. But other sections had valuable discussion about the article content and format. I think we should revert a number of sections back to an active mode, and hereforth show some restraint and get some consensus before boxing so readily. I'd like to keep active the following:

Is publishing pictures of spree killers a good idea? - this is an ongoing debate and though one of the pictures has been nominated for deletion and we can discuss it there, others have not.

Terrorism? - While I think this section is one of the worst offenders for putting personal opinion above valid sourcing, it remains an open debate, and the page title still does not include the word terrorism, nor does the lead passage, which continues to perplex me in that nearly all of our sources refer to the attacks as such. In the interest of brevity and the fact that it's not really relvant, I won't go again in to all of the common sense reasons I think it is undeniably terrorism. Fact remains, I'll bet upwards of 90% of the pages we're referencing in this article contain at least one reference to the attack as terrorist in nature. Until that change is affected to the actual article, I think the discussion at least should stay.

Christian - the degree to which Anders was motivated by religious versus secular ideology is still left quite confused. Although we still have a dirth of secondary sources to resolve this issue at present, I think we should keep it in mind.

Description apparently In his own words - Although this is a primary source and cannot directly influence the article's content, it's a good reference point for us here on the discussion page in trying to sort out the man's ideology and motives. Granted, all of this will have to then be corroborated by secondary sources which might be some time in coming, but I think it's useful enough to leave up front.

Possible links to the EDL and other European far-right groups - This issue shows signs of a revert war in the works, even with protected status. The EDL link is a developing story regardless. We should have a place to discuss it.

Thoughts? Snow (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The archiving is being done automatically by MiszaBot, which archives any thread that has gone more than 48 hours old without activity. This is fairly standand procedure. Manning (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps with regard to some of the sections, but several of the above listed threads and some of the others saw activity as recent as an hour before being archived. Perhaps it is a bot, but if so, it's working on criteria other than a 48-hour rule. Snow (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Transportation

The claims that “all roads into Oslo's downtown area were closed” and “public transport into and out of the city was also halted” are completely untrue. Only a few streets in the immediate vicinity of the bomb site, and a road tunnel that passes under it, were closed. Most public transportation ran without interruption. The public was asked to leave the city center, but there was no general evacuation. As of Monday evening, only about 350 m of Grubbegata (where the bomb exploded), 250 m of Akersgata (parallel to Grubbegata) and 250 m of Apotekergata (a cross street between the aforementioned) were still closed. DES (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for this? At present we are citing refs which disagree with you. They could easily be wrong of course, but we are required to go with what the valid refs are saying until a better (or more timely) ref is found. Manning (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How about “I was there”? I realize that's not WP:RS, which is why I didn't change the article myself. However, you'll note that the refs in question are from foreign media, and anyone who knows Oslo, or who has ever looked at a map of Oslo, will tell you that the phrases “all roads into Oslo's downtown area” simply makes no sense, not least because “Oslo's downtown area” is a rather fluid term. Norwegian media (e.g. [12] from Saturday morning) use phrases like “the streets leading into the Government quarter”. The Government quarter is a very small area, as can be seen on this map (from the Regjeringskvartalet article). DES (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am rather sure that DES is correct, and that the "reliable source" cited is incorrect here. I am and was in Bergen (not Oslo) at the time, but I was glued to the television as the bomb blast was being reported. At the time, I remember the police were asking the public to leave Oslo downtown, while telling that the public transportation (including the subway) was running as normal. We might find the correct information if we have archives of the news which was reported on the 22nd. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

...one exception (to public transportation running as normal) being the #37 bus which was commandeered as an ambulance. It is one of three bus lines which stop at the only bus stop within the restricted area, the others being #33 and #46. DES (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I can second that this is consistent with what I've heard from those I know in Oslo. And Wikipedia policy actually does in some circumstances allow for unsourced information when in cases where the information is uncontroversial, relatively inconsequential when compared to the larger context and the information can be taken at face value. I really don't see the harm in it. We're not likely to find a source correcting the others, at least not in English, not with all the aspects being reported on regarding this story. And the longer it stays the harder it will be to take first-hand reports at face value. And then we'll just be stuck with incorrect info, allbeit relatively unimportant incorrect info (again, in the larger context).Snow (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've cobbled up a map based on my personal observations (on foot and by car) on Saturday afternoon and Monday evening. I'm slightly uncertain about the northern edge, but pretty sure of the rest. Note that on Monday, portions of Eva Kolstads gate and Youngstorget were cordoned off (mostly because the Norwegian Civil Defence still had a base there) but Møllergata was open. Many businesses along the edge of the restricted area were open on Saturday. DES (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I found this article which confirms that the subway and trams at least were operational after the attacks. I have amended the section accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It also says Grensen was closed on Friday. It was open on Saturday, and as far as I can remember, the tramway was running. DES (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing that Oslo S was evacuated and closed down at some point Friday evening. Not sure how long it lasted though. TRambler (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not for long, it was just a “suspicious package”. Oslo City (shopping mall) was also briefly closed on Saturday afternoon. More importantly, however, I forgot to mention that security perimiters were established around the Parliament and the Royal Palace—but they had no impact on transportation. DES (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for future reference, I can confirm (generally) the information provided by DES and Sjakalle above. To satisfy WP:V, this is implicitly cited to e.g. the NRK live news reporting during Friday and Saturday. Verifying information from NRK's historic reporting is inconvenient but entirely possible (it will be in the national library for one, in addition to available from NRK's own archives at need; just have to want it bad enough). Some of it can probably also be sourced to online Norwegian-language newspapers, but I concur that for this particular information it is not really necessary unless someone specifically challenges it with a valid rationale. --Xover (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Local TV station rented a helicopter?

"A local TV station managed to rent a private helicopter and reach the location before any of the police units"

It this true? From what I understand this was a helicopter from NRK (the Norwegian Broadcasting Company) and it was already in the air when the shooting started. The source for this claim is Czech so I am not able to understand it. I tried removing the sentence before, but the change was reverted saying that the source is valid. Unless someone can actually produce a source in a more common lanugage (and preferably more than one source), I will remove it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.161.122.66 (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless there was a second helicopter of which I am not aware, the helicopter in question was from NRK; it was already in the air when reports of the shooting became known; and they were diverted to Utøya to take a few overview shots for use in other reporting. When tasked it is highly unlikely they had any idea what sorts of images they would capture. If necessary I'm sure I can dig up some Norwegian language sources for this, and I'm sure international media have talked about this helicopter flight. --Xover (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, NRK is a national TV network, not a local station, and it does not own a helicopter. DES (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik "listened to film music from The Lord of the Rings"

According to media reports, the suspect "Anders Breivik is believed to have drowned out the screams of his victims by listening to film music from the Lord of the Rings on his iPod. Lux Aeterna, which was used in the battle scenes, is described by the killer as ‘very inspiring and invokes the type of passionate rage within you’."[13] It should be pointed out that Lux Æterna (song) by Clint Mansell was written for Requiem for a Dream and was never used in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, only in one of the trailers for The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers in 2002, and this probably refers to the orchestral remix known as Requiem for a Tower. [14]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

is his choice of music really essential for this article? does it matter that much? that said, I think it should go in the article on the piece of music itself, and perhaps in Breivik's own article. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth a mention. This is not the first time that a mass killer has cited his favourite pop music as a source of inspiration. Matti Saari, the perpetrator of the Kauhajoki school shooting in 2008, cited the German band Wumpscut: as one of his inspirations. In his "manifesto", Breivik wanted to have Lux Æterna as the European national anthem, which is both bizarre and notable. Breivik cites the English language Wikipedia article about this piece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux_Aeterna_(Requiem_for_a_Dream) in his rambling self-justification.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just speculation. Shouldn't be included. -Koppapa (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to include this, since so often certain genres of music are blamed by some people for all sorts of murder and mayhem, and when one comes to an exception, those people will make an effort not to notice. Still, we should apply a sane level of BLP carefulness and only use the facts reported as true in the article - specifically, it says he wore headphones and mentioned Lux Aeterna, but doesn't say that is the music "played in fight scenes in Lord of the Rings". Wnt (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You make very good points, here, Wnt. I am with you on this one. News coverage of US soldiers in Iraq during the height of the war also showed US soldiers listening to heavy metal music (or whatever it's called: it sounded like pure aggressive noise to me) inside their armoured vehicles and inside the helmets in order to put them in the "mood" to fight. Breivik listening to 'loud' music during his shooting rampage is relevant. It matters not because we care about his tastes, but because the music is a factor, an actor, in the inhuman massacre. AugustinMa (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case, it might belong on the article on Breivik, but it definitely doesn't belong here.--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, this belongs with the attack article. If he was wearing earphones that has tactical implications. Why wasn't he worried that with the music playing someone might sneak up and bash him on the back of the head? Why were people using text messages because they were afraid to speak into a cell phone? It also enhances the perception that this was some kind of FPS game to him. Wnt (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is pure conjecture/WP:OR. It doesn't belong in the article unless it is seen as significant by reliable sources - we don't need to include every trivial detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a pity that the "reliable" sources have said that he was listening to this piece on headphones, when this is speculation. It is interesting that he was wearing headphones during the attack, and this is what has set off the speculation. None of the sources so far has mentioned that he wanted a vocal version of the piece as a European national anthem, which is arguably more interesting. This should probably be in his BLP, where it would fit in better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I realize I was conjecturing in my last statement, but you are conjecturing when you call it a "trivial" detail, which is what I mean to rebut. I don't accept the idea that deletionists can do OR to say stuff from reliable sources, worthy of a separate news article all by itself, is just too trivial/irrelevant/unimportant to cover. I say cover the published information. Wnt (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually no reliable source says he was listening to to it, because the only actual reference is to claims in his manifesto as to what he states he plans to listen to. Relying on his manifesto, whcih already contains objective untruths (claims he was a millionaire) is not reliable.71.252.101.199 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, look at the source at the top of this section. Survivors said he was wearing earphones. Probably the media report is using speculation to decide what was on the tape at this point, but it's evidence, and the full soundtrack will doubtless come out in court. Probably end up as a playlist at YouTube... and a soundtrack for a pirate FPS mod. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bang head against wall. Some more. More proof that Wikipedia has no business covering news, especially controversial news. What next? His favorite Pokemon character?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For your information, if you search for and attempt to be patient enough to watch some far-right/fascist propaganda videos on YouTube you'll notice that Lux Aeterna is used in some of them. Whether this has any significance I don't know, but I state it as information only. Cogiati (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that the song is NOT featured AT ANY TIME in the Lord Of the Rings Films. It is from "Requiem for a Dream." It should probably read, "Lux Aeterna" by composer Clint Mansell. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.70.11 (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliance on manifesto

The Manifesto contains claims many of which are demonstrably false. I am not referring to his subjective views, butn his claims as to his personal life and possibly his moments. It seems to me any reference directly or by secondary sources on the Manifesto's assertions should be qualified with "claimed", ie that he claims to have traveled to London or meetings in 2002. Since he seems to have made a number of things up, eitehr as fantasy or disinformation, such claims shoudl be qualified here, even if a secondary source makes an unqualified statement not corroborated by the authorities (example tracking his known movements).71.252.101.199 (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This should probably read "motives", not "moments".  Cs32en Talk to me  06:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule it is not our place to correct the content of secondary sources based upon personal research on primary sources. The 'claimed' wording you suggest might be appropriate in places, but only where the secondary source is explicitly site's the manifesto as the source for it's claim and itself leaves open the issue of whether the event happened. If the source is generally accepted as valid , we do not get to be arbiters of their journalistic process and only a conflicting secondary source of equal value can be used to alter the content, even down to those little claims. Anyway, that aside, as to the specific example you gave, whether or not Breivik went to London in 2002 (and I most certainly agree that manifesto seems to be clearly certainly filled with lies, misdirection and outright delusion), the evidence being reported suggests that he's had extensive interaction with right-leaning groups in Britain over the more recent last few years, having met, apparently, with some senior leadership of the EDL, for one. Several noteworthy sources have claimed as much, citing sources independent of the manifesto.Snow (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The manifesto is a perfect source about what the manifesto says... otherwise, it explicitly states that Section Three and I think four is a "work of fiction". Though perhaps it says this for strictly legal reasons, the author isn't exactly someone with a character I would trust. In any case, we should publish what secondary sources say, being careful (as we should always be!) not to inadvertently make our text about the article sound more definite than the article did itself. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

SnowRise, Please, it is not a quesiton of "personal research." there are statements attributed to the manifesto about Breivik that are plagiarized yet which he places himself in first person. So we know portions of the manifesto are defacto false, and this is not a matter of "personal research". The fact is many of the secondary source articles, even from top notch press outlets has been incorrect. I am not talking about original research or my research, but about using the conditional. There are MANY instances in the current text that need to be conditional. the Question of Breiviks legal insanity is one thing no one knows at this point, but clearly the individual has aggrandized himself that isn't research, it is a quite plain fact.

Lasty it has been several years since I have been on wikipedia, but unless wikipedia has changed quite a bit, secondary source being taken as unquestioned in a fast breaking news event was alwasy seen as problematic. I am looking at top notch secondary sources saying he had an automatic weapon, and the weapon is not, there are BBC reports he was in the Norwegian military and reports he was draft differed. There are many details large and small with conflicting information in secondary sources, including top of the line sources (NYT, BBC etc)23:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.44.109 (talk)

Guys, I share your frustration when the press drops the ball on a story of this importance, but to some extent our hands are tied here. The manifesto is actually not a perfect source on what the manifesto says, counter-intuitive as that seems. Primary sources simply cannot take precedence over secondary sources, even where the secondary source itself draws information from the primary. Maybe the journalist did due and diligent work in verifying or discounting various claims from the primary source and or maybe they are lousy at that job or let themselves get too close to the subject matter, but we don't get to make that call. In a way, we are held to a higher standard here (though of course the stakes are higher for them in that the blowback if they are wrong is much bigger). Anyway, the best we can do in situations where we think that a secondary source is misquoting a primary source or otherwise bungling the facts is to show restraint and not include the information and wait for the truth to get sorted out through other sources. But if another Wikipedian jumps the gun and does decide to include that information, and the source he implies is one that would typically be considered valid, we can't remove or alter the content it inspires without another source, sad to say. We just have to remember that while these rules can sometimes weaken our content in situations such as these, that on the balance and in the long run, these policies make our content much stronger overall. Now we can be very careful with the wording, and, as Wnt says, not make the facts sound any more definite than the secondary source itself did, that's just right and proper. But if a secondary source says "Breivik went to London in 2002 to attend a formational meeting of the radical right group the Knights Templar" rather than "Breivik claims to have gone..." then it's also correct to use the former rather than the latter (or use nothing at all). As 72. says, it's problematic in a developing story, to say the least, which is why we should always wait for multiple sources for confirmation in such circumstances, but not everyone show that caution and I'm afraid the guidelines allow that of them whereas they do not allow us to correct what we think may be outright mistakes without a source.

On an aside 72., as regards Breivik's military service, service is typically compulsory for men in Norway, although the commitment is short (12-19 months, often spread out over a number of years) and largely consists of training and typically stationing in Norway. Apparently, Breivik was exempted from this service, though I don't know on what grounds. As to the automatic weapon, I've heard it cited in several sources that witnesses claimed he had one at Utoya, but surely the situation was confused and these were largely children we're talking about. In any event, not exactly vital info at this point. Don't worry guys, the details will get sorted out. with as many dedicated contributors as we have one this article scouring for trustworthy sources, we're in good position to get it right.

Snow (talk)) 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Preparing from 2009?

It seems overly cautious to claim that Breivik had been preparing for his actions from "at least as early as 2009". According to his manifest, he started preparing in 2002:[15] Lampman (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See numerous discussions above about the manifesto being a 'Primary source', and therefore not citable. Manning (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And that is exactly why I quoted a secondary source, and its interpretation of the manifesto. Try at least to read other people's entries before you criticise them. Lampman (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about a film?

If some producers will decide to make a movie about these attacks it will be necessary to mention this fact in the article. LET'S TRY TO SEARCH. 195.122.250.196 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

expressed admiration of several successful crusader leaders such as Charles Martel, Richard Lionheart, El Cid, Vlad III the Impaler, Jacques de Molay, Tsar Nicholas and John III Sobieski.

Many of these aren't crusaders at all. Are we going with the islamist -"against crusaders (that is: christians) and jews" as they put it- definition of a crusader here..? or should we rather try to use use wikipedia's own, more sensible, definition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader

"Crusader may refer to:

Military

Crusader, a participant in one of the Crusades"

If ABB himselfs terms/thinks these people crusaders then that should be made clear. As it stands now, it's factually incorrect. 90.227.176.140 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler was seen as sort of a bulwark against Islam (his kingdom was the border against its expansion at the time). El Cid was a famous military leader in the confused situation in Spain during the period of Moorish influence, though it seems odd to name him when he was not exactly purely on the Christian side! I have a feeling that if we look up Tsar Nicholas we'll find some anti-Islamic action... ah, Nicolas I of Russia was involved in starting the Crimean War against the Ottomans. As I tried to get across in my reverted edit (discussed under the Hindu section) this guy basically was all for anybody who killed some Muslims, without a lot of deep thought involved. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Christian fundamentalist"

I believe that while the descriptor "Christian" for Breivik is accurate, the description as a "Christian fundamentalist" is based on off-the-cuff assessments in very early reports and should be dropped. I have discussed my reasons in detail at: Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Religious_section where further discussion of this should be directed. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It should absolutely stay, just read his writtings where he calls him self a templar and even a great defender of the Christendom in Europe!--89.143.114.225 (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Europe, but in the United States most Christian fundamentalists wouldn't touch the Templars (or any secret society, such as the Freemasons) with a 10-foot pole. The Templars allegedly had some very un-fundamentalist beliefs including Baphomet worship, which is why most fundamentalists don't like them or their descendants the Masons. Difluoroethene (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, to start, the concept of unbroken tradition of secret institutions connecting the Freemasons to the Knights Templar is almost certainly goofy folk history, much as I'm sure many in such organizations would like to believe in it. Second, these ultra-right militants don't adopt the Templar name because they truly want to live as they did, they just gravitate to casting themselves in the role of defender of the realms of Christianity and the excuse this gives them to pursue their hate-mongering and violence. And there are a few white supremacists groups which operate in America that use the word "Knights" in their name, though you're right in that American Christian fundamentalism tends to have a decidedly different tone. For one thing, American Christian fundamentalists are largely protestant and often included Catholics in their hate lists, whereas their counterparts in Europe are more likely to accept some elements of a trans-Christendom movement. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

I agree that the final article on the 2011 Norway Attacks will probably not contain a lot of detail about this person, but perhaps relevant links to other mass murderers, and possible traits they share. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article doesn't (or at least shouldn't) say that Breivik is a Christian fundamentalist. It can however say that he has been described as one. It isn't up to us to decide if this is true or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is something we could all do to remember, since some have become heated trying to prove that he does or does not qualify as a Christian or (bizarely, imo) even a terrorist. We're not here to make empirical claims, we're here to summarize what information and perspectives are already out there. I admit I've risked losing sight of that fact myself at places on this discussion page. I would add however that we certainly have to also add that Breivik himself believes he is a Christian. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Snow

Please keep in mind that I and others have presented non-empirical evidence that he does not identify with or practice Christianity (i.e. quotes from his writing and the Bible). However, I agree that clarifications like "he has been described as" are most important. I maintain that sources calling the shooter Christian are sensational reports. He describes himself as a cultural Christian, which is a secular term (as explained on Wikipedia!). OhSqueezy (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But we shouldn't give undue weight to any particular individual or source that describes him this way. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian professor of police science Tore Bjørgo says the following to Verdens Gang:[16]

– What Anders Behring Breivik has expressed in his profile on the net has been non-violent. He believes in God, but is not particularly religious. It will therefore not be appropriate to categorize him as a Christian fundamentalist. (– Det Anders Behring Breivik har uttrykt i sin profil på nettet har vært ikke-voldelig. Han tror på Gud, men er ikke spesielt religiøs. Det vil derfor ikke være riktig å kategorisere ham som fundamentalistisk kristen.)

Lampman (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be good to realize that "Christian Fundamentalist" probably doesn't carry the same meaning in Europe as in the United States. --Popoi (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposing an image change for Breivik ('Suspect') section

Since we can only reasonably have one image for Breivik, I suggest we replace the existing one with the candid taken at his arraignment. This image shows him in a context more relevant to the the attacks and thus to the article, and will free us from an image that represents how Breivik wants to see himself portrayed but which is not necesarily the most ideal image for our purposes. I mean, come on, the guy looks like a corny G.I. Joe character. And while I'm happy to laugh at his idea of what a great and noble protector of Christendom looks like, it nonetheless seems inappropriate here. What's more, if we go by default with current image, just because it was one of the first available, we're letting Breivik set the tone for our article, which is an inappropriate relationship between the subject of an article and the content, the subject should never influence the form the article takes, even in such a roundabout and unintentional manner. The arraignment image would also be more recent. Thoughts? Snow (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Go for it! DES (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm in the process of getting the licensing sorted out on commons. Hopefully should have it up briefly. Snow (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you can get this changed. I'm so sick of seeing this maniac's 'photoshop' picture (which his manifesto clearly states as intended for publication).92.5.243.22 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed the picture with his facebook image for the same reason. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 01:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

At present I have yet to find an argument for public domain under U.S. copyright law. It's clearly fair-use, but this doesn't pass muster for commons, typically. I've appealed to the help desk for help trying to deduce if there is an argument to be made under Norwegian law and perused some legal documents myself, but so far have yet to discover a sufficient argument. The next step is to contact the photographer and get his permission, which I'm going to attempt. Snow (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

True Finns

In the International Reaction section, the article states that the True Finns party is right-wing. However, they are officially centre-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.243.250 (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That should be fixed then. Do you happen to have a source we can use for that? Unfortunately the source that is cited for the True Finns reaction right now is print media, so I'm not sure if the source claims that they are right-leaning or just comments on their reaction, but we'd be on better footing using a source if we're going to change this regardless.Snow (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bullets used

The article says that the bullets he used were hollow-point, which increase tissue damage. This is all true, but the method of presentation biases the impact on the reader. To my knowledge, if he hadn't used hollow-point, he'd have to have used military-grade ammunition, which would have been difficult to obtain. Most civilian weapons use hollow-point to limit unintended damage to other people (they don't pierce targets). --69.61.218.88 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your claim that “most civilian weapons use hollow-point to limit unintended damage to other people”? Expanding ammunition is illegal in Norway except for big-game hunting. Furthermore, since the Hague convention forbids the use of expanding ammunition in warfare, there is no “military-grade” expanding ammunition to be had either. However, it seems that ABB's Ruger Mini-14 is commonly used for deer hunting, so he may have obtained soft-point (not hollow-point) rifle ammunition legally. DES (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway's "nine-eleven"?

Are there any references of the attacks being labelled "seven twentytwo" in Norwegian?--85.165.231.254 (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be more likely called "twenty-two seven" since Norwegian (and European) convention is day-before-month. Right now newspapers headlines usually simply call this "the terror attacks", and the date is usually referred to simply as "22. juli" (22 July). It may take some time before a common name is settled on. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the U.S. "nine-eleven" usage also owes much to the fact that (ironically or deliberately?) this is the police emergency call number throughout the country. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The official inquiry commission is called the 22 July Commission. So that gives an idea what the incident is likely to be named as. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 23:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Victims?

There is a section for the Perpetrator, but no section for the Victims. Do we have any information about the victims yet? Who they were? At least one victim (the off duty police officer) has been reported in the media. Burghardts (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the news cycle. Once the big media collectively finishes reading the "manifesto" (reportage on that remains a work in progress), the wall of victims will be trotted out (around Thursday this week, maybe Friday, unless Norwegian law forbids it, and even it it does, many leaks by the weekend).Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Victims are generally not acknowledged individually, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but some may be notable in their own right, or as, say, the youngest. At least an overview (how many, by age, gender, etc) is needed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not even WP:SINGLEEVENT, but WP:MEMORIAL also. If there are notable victims in that are verifiable in reliable sources we *might* include them - but if they were notable before the event the information is better included in their article in wikipedia (or one created if they didn't have one - if they were notable before the attacks), but we do not do this even in September 11 attacks. Even being the youngest victim is still WP:SINGLEEVENT, so I would be careful about inclusion. Notability is a general or specific criteria of an individual, and it is not inherited, so being notable within a single event doesn't necessarily mean notability in a wikipedia sense. I know it is frustrating that we often speak of the perpetrator and little about the victims, but consider that the perpetrator generally has the intent of scrutiny, whereas the victims were private people who do not necessarily want their lives - even if cut short - examined voyeristically because of the actions of someone else. Its about respecting privacy and exercising decorum, as much as it is about encyclopedic quality. --Cerejota (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between being notable enough to be the subject of an article; and to be mentioned in one. It would be perfectly acceptable to say something like "Victims ranging from the youngest, Fred Bloggs, 13, to the oldest, John Doe, 67". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik first shot camp hostess and security officer?

Yesterday's Ilta-Sanomat reported that Breivik's first victims on Utoøya were the camp hostess and security officer. The hostess was already suspicious of Breivik when he first arrived on the island, so she went to talk to the security guard, at which point Breivik killed them both. Are there any other sources for this? JIP | Talk 05:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the same in Aftonbladet today. But they don't cite their sources. --Popoi (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither does Ilta-Sanomat. I haven't read this news anywhere else. I wish I remembered the name of the camp hostess. The only thing I remember was that her first name was something like Sigurd or Solveig and her last name ended in "ei". She was called "the mother of Utøya". If I remembered her full name I could do a Google search for her name + Anders Behring Breivik to try to find reputable sources. JIP | Talk 22:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Her name was Monica Elisabeth Bøsei, and it was mentioned in Norwegian newspapers too. Those cited witness reports from survivors. -Laniala (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a Google search for her name. The only results that contained anything more than her name, birthday and place of birth were Danish newspapers which said that she was suspicious of Breivik and therefore was the first one to die. Nothing such in Norwegian newspapers. Do these qualify as reputable sources? JIP | Talk 08:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The same story has been reported by Norwegian media. DES (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Sigurd is a man's name. DES (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

More victims named

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14294251 - I'm working so can't do anything with that right now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Victims Section excised

I excised the section entitled "Victims" (DIFF) for two reasons - firstly as per WP:SINGLEEVENT/ WP:MEMORIAL, and secondly because at present it contained only two names. I don't believe that a list of all 76 victims is appropriate, but as always, lets obtain a consensus first. Manning (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Much as I believe the victims are worthy of memorial, this is just not the place for it. It's clearly inconsistent with encyclopedic tone. Certainly if any noteworthy names pop up, they can be given mention. That always leaves a bad taste in my mouth in cases like this (vs. other WP:SINGLEEVENT scenarios) because,in the context of talking about a person's death it feels like we're saying some are less worthy of being remembered than others. Nevertheless, this is clearly what Wikipedia policy requires of us here. In any event, even if there are a few notable names (it's possible a high-ranking public servant might have been killed in the bombing, for example, and we of course know about the crown princess' step-brother) I doubt there will be enough for a separate section, and it would read awkwardly to have a section labelled "Noteworthy" victims anyway. Clearly the names, if any, need to be placed in another section. Which though, I couldn't say. Snow (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of showing my age, let me say that an argument of this very nature dates back to 9/11 - by November 2001 one devoted editor (Cunctator) had created over 1000 article pages in an attempt to memorialise every single victim - it represented nearly 10% of the entire Wikipedia at the time. It was decided back then (and remains policy to this day) that we don't create "memorial lists". Manning (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. I knew the memorial policy and the reasoning, but I'd never heard how it was precipitated. But clearly one of those things that made Wikipedia leaner and more effective, though arguably the policy might have developed anyway, forced by convergent guidelines and tone considerations. Snow (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the remnants of the memorial discussion on Meta (itself a copy of what started in Wikipedia). The whole exercise got moved to a new domain early in 2002, and that domain has since died. The whole thing was a bitter, bitter dispute. Manning (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for adding the list, did not know of the policy. But my main reason for adding the list was not the names, but the ages of the victims. Can I make a age list sort of like Casualties of the September 11 attacks - Non-American casualties (only age of the victims). Something like:

Age	Total fatalities
10	4
18	2
40-50	2

User:46.67.217.180 —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

I think that would probably be appropriate content (oncw sourced, of course!), but I'm not sure it needs to be in list form. maybe just a comment along the liens of "50 of the victims were children aged 11-18, the rest adults." Those of course are just guesses at what the actual numbers may be, for the sake of providing an example, of course. Snow (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Victime section excised... again

I feel like a schmuck for doing this to an IP - one who had clearly put a fair amount of work into this. However unless we have a major policy shift, lists of victims do not belong in the article.

For posterity, and review, here is the table that the IP had created: Manning (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

>XXX ==Victims==
>XXX ===Utøya===

Name	Birth	Age	From
Sharidyn Svebakk-bøhn	1997-07-17	14	Drammen
Silje Merete Fjellbu	1993-11-13	17	Tinn
Hanne A. Balch Fjalestad	1967-10-13	43	Lunner
Bano Abobakar Rashid	1992-12-28	18	Nesodden
Syvert Knudsen	1993-08-21	17	Lyngdal
Diderik Aamodt Olsen	1992-06-03	18	Nesodden
Simon Sæbø	1992-07-25	18	Salangen
Synne Røyneland	1993-01-18	18	Oslo
Anne Lise Holter	1959-09-16	52	Våler, Østfold
Trond Berntsen	1960-05-12	51	Øvre Eiker
Birgitte Smetbak	1996-02-25	15	Nøtterøy
Margrethe Bøyum Kløven	1995-03-03	16	Bærum
Even Flugstad Malmedal	1992-12-06	18	Gjøvik
Gunnar Linaker	1988-07-07	23	Bardu

>XXX ===regjeringskvartalet (the Government Quarter)===

Name	Birthday	Age	From
Tove Åshill Knutsen	1954-07-31	56	Oslo
Hanna M. Orvik Endresen	1950-03-21	51	Oslo
Kai Hauge	1978-07-31	32	Oslo

The list is from https://www.politi.no/Kampanje_70.xhtml (the offical list for now). Did not know about the policy, so sorry for adding it.

Dude (or Dudette) - no apology needed! I felt bad for removing it as you had put a decent amount of effort into it. I hope it doesn't sour your experience at Wikipedia. Cheers Manning (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We certainly should have a sentence that the official list of the dead is available from that location. Also I should note that there's a new Wikipedia competitor www.wikialpha.org that would accept the material, though I don't know yet if any appreciable number of people will ever be seeing it. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)