Jump to content

Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on 2011 Norway attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2011 Norway attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Attack on society, but not targeting the civilian population

Attacks "against the government, the civilian population, and a Workers' Youth League (AUF)-run summer camp"?
The van bomb was parked less than two yards from a wall of The Cabinet Building (Regjeringsbygget). The location is around fifteen metres from the closest sidewalk. The target there was the government, and passerbys were victims of collateral damage.
The summer camp of the Workers' Youth League was the other target. The vast majority of these victims were members of that politcal organisation and they were civilians. One victim was an off-duty police officer, that had an extra job, taking care of security at the summer camp on the small island.

In neither location, the civilian population of itself was the target. Why does the article say that the civilian population was attacked? 89.8.199.128 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Because, clearly, the civilian population was attacked. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The following is not in itself an attack on the civilian population: Departing from a city street, Grubbegata, driving onto government property (wikipedia says that he drove into a government parking lot and parked in front of the entrance of regjeringsbygget/høyblokken/the tower block with the PM's Office). Setting off a bomb two metres from that building, which is fifteen metres from the sidewalk of the city street - how is that an attack on the civilian population?
Arriving at the boat to ferry him to Utøya (an island), he lies to the sentries - members of the Workers' Youth League that are wearing badges of some sort identifying that they are officials/functionaries of that organisation's summer camp - to gain access. He is ferried to the island, where the killing starts four minutes after arriving. That's an attack of the secluded summer camp of a political organisation. Arguably it is an attack on the politcal organisation itself. Arguably it was not an attack on the "the civilian population", and arguably Breivik was not attacking himself (even though Breivik is a member of the civilian population).
Was the attack on Utøya, an attack on a political group or was it an attack on "the civilian population" itself? 46.15.246.73 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Civil and public servants are civilians. So are the contractors (cleaners, security guards, I.T. guys), street cleaners, vendors, and other assorted passers-by. Children attending a youth camp are civilians. Goodye, troll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
One civilian attacking the government (by setting off a bomb two metres from "The Cabinet Building/The Government Building" housing the PMs office) and a political party (by killing members of the party and sympathisers)?
One civilian targeting segments of the civilian population?
Or one civilian indescriminately targeting fellow members of "the civilian population"?
If your arguments are lacking, then I think it is ok that you call me names. Could you please consider referring to me as a blasphemer or a counterrevolutionary instead of other names? 46.15.246.73 (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Norway attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed

"a total of 53[citation needed] identical sculpture memorials erected for the deceased victims". 89.8.3.161 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2011 Norway attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 Norway attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 Norway attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sizable sections of Breivik's manifesto copied from Unabomber's

Another issue that is coming to light is that apparently significant sections of Breivik's manifesto are copied and pasted from Theodore Kaczynski's manifesto, with just the odd word changed to alter the institutions the rant is directing against.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/anders_breivik_unabomber.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/07/24/oslo-utoya-norway-attacks-anders-breivik-manifesto-unibomber_n_908143.html

Motive for selecting the targets he attacked

I can't find anywhere in the articles, where it says why he attacked the targets he did. Is it missing? If not, then where is this clarified?Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was not mentioned directly, but if you connect the dots, you'll see that he's nothing else than a stupid socially isolated and mentally sick guy who had perhaps severe problems in his past which had affected his ability to build up a proper ideology clear of hatred and phobias. That having been said, he just hated anybody else than those of his own ideology¹ and since he was stupid and could not distinguish the real world from world of fiction and game², he planed and organized this brutal attack over years in his sick imagination as well in the reality. And sadly he didn't keep the plan in his head.

1. Muslims and Lefties have nothing in common but he hated 'em both. 2. he considered himself as a knight to rescue Europe, which is very fictional in 21st century... Roshak08 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorbraten memorial in limbo section

This section is said to be excessively detailed: lots of quotes from news articles and people that might not be encyclopedically relevant. I'd like to take a stab at trimming it down an making it less detailed, so I'd like toreceive some input from others on what kids of things I should remove or keep. Thanks! QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.--Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

No reference of being about the attacks

"Dutch symphonic metal band Epica released a song entitled "Internal Warfare", on their 2012 album Requiem for the Indifferent. "

Also, there is no need for vanity mention of any band members (of any band). 89.8.95.220 (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is introducing unsourced WP:POPCULTURE references. Even if true, it doesn't establish why the reference is noteworthy. The two music references should be sourced or removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

How high should our treshold be for mentioning spraypainting of Breivik's name?

Should this article mention everytime Breivik's name has been sprayed on (or "graffitied") on a monument?
Please someone, consider to remove stuff like that from the article!
Please also give justification in the edit remark. Possible remarks that might justify removing text from article: "The graffiti had no international impact", or
"The graffiti had no significant national consequence (apart from having photograph of graffiti in national newspapers)".

I expect to remove the mention, one time today (and one time only).


For the record: Spraying Breivik's name on the monument for the victim of a racial killing; that is insensitive, and it is low. However, Wikipedia does not write about everything that is insensitive or low. Somewhere we will have to draw the line, for the time being. ​89.8.95.44 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

the Utøya study - the end of the study (what month in what year)

When did the study end? (Perhaps @DIACHRONY: has an idea about locating an applicable reference.) 89.8.108.103 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

How long is it reasonable to partially lock an article, when there has been no edit-warring, and no complaints on the talk page?

Hi @El C:! It seems that you have "partially locked" the article, for the next 31 days.
Please be so kind, to list here the 3 most problematic diffs, in regard to what you have labeled "disruptive editing". The discussion page has not indicated that there has been a problem, one might say. 89.8.108.103 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

IP, you should be patient (days rather than hours) before jumping the gun, so this is more about you pacing yourself. If there's cause, the protection may be lifted early, but one step at a time. El_C 18:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
RE: "How long is it reasonable to partially lock an article, when there has been no edit-warring, and no complaints on the talk page?" — IP, there's been multiple reverts in the last few days. What are you talking about there having been no edit-warring? El_C 18:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Over the last few days, there are some edits which could be described as "Be bold!"

You recommended "days rather than hours". Fine!

I reckon that if one edit gets looked at as edit-warring, then that is one edit that has gone too far - in one way, shape or form.

I am fine with the article being "partially blocked" for a while, now that the issue has been elaborated. (However it would also be fine if somebody does something about the linking to Knights Templar (in the sub-section about the 2019 New Zealand terrorism. On the discussion page, the issue has been mentioned this last half-week.) 89.8.108.103 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
How about creating an account because the editing from a very similar IP range (essentially 89.8.108.103/18) in the past few months is rather concerning. – The Grid (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
"Concerning", you say. However, the talk page has not reflected your sentiment, until now.

Reminder: everyone is hereby offered to become a registered user. (It is free, and there are a number of benefits.)

The article might have a new issue: How does the Utøya Report compare to Paid research? (The Utøya Report was put into the article by a new, registered user of 7 weeks.) The report seems to have been written by a Limited company - aksjeselskap. (I am not sure that the report is bringing anything new to the table, that might be of benefit to anyone outside of Norway. In other words: does the report/research have anything to say that can benefit anyone who has no relation to Norwegian events/Norwegians).

If there is no Foundation (organisation), that is responsible for the Utøya Report, then that might want someone to raise a red flag. 89.8.108.103 (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"meeting with his organisation"

The wiki-article is currently making some odd claim, and trying to call some organisation, for Breivik's organistation. It seems to me, that one entity - or "gratis-registration company" - is still registered to Breivik; that company/organisation is the only one that is Breivik's organisation. (I am talking about the so-called farming-company that Breivik also had back in 2011.) About Breivik possibly being a leader of a political party: there have not been any media reports about former members of such an organisation. There is no independent information about such an organisation, and no verifiable information. 89.8.100.51 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Norway_attacks/Archive_5&oldid=1157087279"