Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Conservative blog describes him as Darwinian?

There have been repeated edits to the religion section describing him as a "Darwinian." The only source the editor provides is a conservative site. I've undone those edits, but I thought I would bring up the issue here in case that person wants to discuss it further. Lklusener (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Darwinism isn't a religion for a start. But no, we shouldn't be using blogs (conservative or otherwise) as sources, per WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See #Christian? --hydrox (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? It is entirely possible to be a Darwinist and a Christian at the same time. The idea that they are somehow polar opposites is largely a fiction perpetrated in US politics these days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I was replying to OP not you. --hydrox (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I misunderstood. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Incidentally the quote says, not that he believes in evolution of species, but that he believes in darwinian evolution of societies; which is actually rather different, because societies don't have DNA for inheritance. Because of that most darwinists don't really believe in darwinian evolution of societies.Teapeat (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Social Darwinism is an entirely different animal than Darwinism, Darwin himself opposed the early social-darwinists. That said, why is this even mentioned here, it is from an unreliable blog. I am sure people are going to claim all sort of things, we don't have to even consider them all. Lets stick to the RS, yeah? --Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the WP:RELIABLE policy considers self published sources as reliable sources under certain conditions, which the usage of this source meets. By any sane definition (including the wikipedia's policies) this source is a reliable source of what Breivik claims (as opposed to giving good evidence that what he claims as being true, being actually true). There is no wikipedia policy that supports its complete removal as you have done.Teapeat (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So if he claims he's born on a particular date in the Manifesto, we can quote that, but indicate that it's only a claim he makes. But if there was a secondary source, then we can write it as true. That's how self published sources are supposed to be used, as proof of claims of something, but not proof of something.Teapeat (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(As I understand it, this discussion is not about whether his manifesto is a usable source.) --hydrox (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why can we not post what the World Net Daily posted, while posting things other reliable sources report? The WND is in fact quoting from Breivik's manifesto, which is sourced on the site and on the main article. There seems to be a strange bias toward conceptualizing this guy as a "fundamentalist Christian" baselessly. He's a Darwinist and a Cultural Christian, by his own admission, and who in his manifesto goes out of his way to explain that: "Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation [sic] but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order." (reference: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=325765#ixzz1T4sv8V9x) --Ben Ammi (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In the verifiable manifesto he wrote: "'Logic' and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level." --Ben Ammi (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposed 2100 page manifesto

This is supposed to be a 2100 page manifesto. Could someone validate? Word pad craps out while loading. www.megaupload.com/?d=NECW5J00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.64.102 (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's the formatting change from docx to pdf that changes the page count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.64.102 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE weight given to his opinions about Israel in the article

First, it is mentioned that Breivik used to write on Dokument.no which one Norwegian daily (Aftenposten) described as "anti Islamic and Israel friendly". Though Breivik participating on this site was described in many western media sources (e.g. the Telegraph or [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43874935/ this one]) it seems that the Aftenposten was among the only media sources, perhaps the single one that called it "Israel friendly". In any case, I can't see reason why not just describing the site as one which was identified with the European right wing and not more than that. As it comes to the Aftenposten, this daily was accused for anti Israeli/anti Semitic bias and not ones-see this , that and there are others as well, so mentioning what the Aftenposten called to this site seems like bad choice at least for this purpose. Second, one of the sources in the articles politics section is the Jerusalem Post, Israeli daily, which was cited for Breivik worldview here and in the other of Wikipedia related articles -describing Breivik world view as:"extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism and venomous attacks on Marxism and multi-culturalism." But the original citation was: "extreme, bizarre and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism and venomous attacks on Marxism and multi-culturalism." I fixed it already. Third, third of the politics section is dedicated for his views about Israel while in his manifesto he wrote in length about how seeing Muslims happy when American soldiers died and etc shaped his world view and especially he emphasized NATO involvement in the conflict between Serbia and Bosnia as the event that 'tipped the scales' for him. None of this in mentioned of course and the result is WP:UNDUE about Israel. It can be seen by fairly reviewing the sources that his ideological scope is much larger and is not focused on Israel but rather on war between the Western culture and the Islamic culture or cultural Marxists.--Gilisa (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, and there have been numerous attempts to remove this from the article before as well. I am removing it now for good. --hydrox (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Pay attention that this issue was discussed already on this TP and there seem to be enough editors who agree as well and in any case none of those who disagree that there is WP:UNDUE about Israel couldn't really refute it. In Breiviks mind many countries are on the right side and many on the wrong, he also mentioned Japan and S.Korea as countries from which the West should learn. Yet, no one was thinking about giving them the same weight (undue one) that was given to Israel in the article. It's quite hallucinated. --Gilisa (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But the far right wing blogs like www.pi-news.net are saying that they are pro-Irsael! --89.204.153.249 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am taking a very small step back. I think it is noteworthy that he has been described as pro-Israel by Israeli newspaper. This is notworthy because the European far right has traditionally been considered anti-Jewish, and I've seen this "change in far right ideals" noted in many other medias as well. --hydrox (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hydrox, it's not really noteworthy-it's Israeli newspaper and therefore it's natural that it would report on what can seem as most interesting for the Israeli reader.--Gilisa (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's it! None of these blogs from the far right wing claim that they are pro-Japanese or pro-Korean, but most of them claim to be pro-Israel. This is simply because they see Israel as a front-fighter at the battlefield against Islam. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So what? IP user 89.204.137.166, that's only make my point stronger, while the right wing in Europe is in part pro Israeli (unless you consider Neo Nazi or pro Nazi movements as this of the late Jörg Haider as "right")-and it's is not new, they are not pro Japanese or pro S.Korean-but the killer wad pro Japanese and pro S.Korea among many other things that his ideology is built of. That's what made him unique and emphasize why the article shouldn't elaborate about Israel or include single source, very unreliable and controversial one in regard to Jews and Israel, that unlike the others stress that the killer used to spend time on site which the source described as "anti Muslim and Israel friendly" while virtually all other major sources described the site as "anti Islamic and anti immigration"-which it's actually, because the site purpose is to focus on Europe and what happen in it, and not on Israel-regardless if there are Israel friendly users active on this site. --Gilisa (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Islamophobic Far Right (which he seems to be a fringe part of) is, afaik, actually, quite often Pro-Israel, since it tends to view Israel as an ally against Islam. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Right! Their Israel-friendliness is part of their ideology and it is an important part. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not always their ideology and in any case, it still doesn't have much to do with the killer who actually also wrote in length about Japan and Korea as "model countries" (and there is no elaboration about that here), he wrote much about Serbia and the meetings that he had with Serbian activists (it's not really mentioned in the article-though it's much more relevant than Israel to this article) or even praised Top Gears' Jeremy Clarkson for what he viewed as his national/European stand. I'm sure that Clarkson is quite unhappy with the killer praising him, but we have no intention to elaborate about that here anyway. What I suggest in short, is not to give weight to his opinions about countries or people that are not related to the event itself or to his activity in direct manner.--Gilisa (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Gilisa, you lie. Jeremy Clarkson ist criticized by Breivik, not praised. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon?Lied? you are violating here Wikipedia policies of WP:CIVIL anf WP:no personal attacks. Even if I was wrong you didn't have the right to call me liar. But I'm not [1]. Second, stop hiding behind your IP when you engage into nonconstructive editing. --Gilisa (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No Pardon at all, Gilisa. You make things worse as everybody can read that Breivik clearly criticizes Clarkson about his stance toward the flag and nationalism. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) PS: And here is what Clarkson wrote and what Breivig is criticizing: 3. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article2935442.ece

Israel only appears once in this article eventhought his pro-Christian/Israel motives are his main ideaology, along with Hate for Marxism and Multiculturalism, several individuals keep playing this pro-Israel (selectively) down. Wikipedia is not about censorship, because someone doesn't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.108.9 (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Only once? No, the word "Israel" is abundant in his manifesto. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I see that he praised Clarkson on his performances in Top Gear, perhaps he criticized him about the flag and I misunderstood it. In any case, you called me liar and this behavior consist a personal attack and you also should learn some about WP:AGF. In any case, I appreciate your endless efforts to push Israel into article it doesn't belong, but Breivik also wrote largely on Japan, South Korea, Serbia-and probably many other countries, people, historic heroes TV shows and who know what else. It is not an excuse for you or for anyone to imply that Israel or his being pro Israeli were behind the attacks.--Gilisa (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. His support for Israel is an extremely important part of his Islamophobic worldview, that needs to be discussed. As he states in his manifesto, this is a core idea of his,

"I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now). Islam must be re-classified as a political ideology and the Quran and the Hadith banned as the genocidal political tools they are" (p. 650)

"A modern cultural conservative (nationalist), anti-Jihad right wing alternative is emerging in Western Europe. A majority of Western European right wing groups are all anti-Islamisation and pro-Israel" (p. 1400)

An article in the Financial Times[2] from yesterday discusses the rise of "a new type of right-wing extremism" which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam, and asserts that the killer personifies this type of extremism. Document.no is the leading pro-Israeli website in Norway, and Aftenposten is Norway's leading, and arguably most Israel-friendly (relatively speaking), newspaper. As the Huffington Post points out:

"Today, Europe faces a new threat. The pan-European anti-Muslim movement includes leading individuals who embrace "Judeo-Christian values" and express their undying support for Israel instead of the anti-Semitism that is so central to the neo-Nazi movement."[3]

And as Israel National News notes,

"Breivik called himself a strong supporter of Zionism, praised Theodor Herzl the founder of Zionism, and attacked the European political establishment because he saw it as being anti-Israel"[4]

Der Spiegel describes the movement he is part of as:

"pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel -- but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist"[5]

Like the European anti-muslim pro-Israeli far-right, and the far right in Israel itself, Breivik of course is critical of "leftwing Jews", stating:

"Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us [...] So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists" (Jerusalem Post)

The Jerusalem Post concludes that he

"lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"[6]

The Australian sums it all up:

"Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[7]

I understand that "Whatever 'support' for Israel Anders Behring Breivik may have had in his abominable mind, it is not any kind of support we want" as it is said in an interview with JTA, but we do not censor information some people don't like. It is important to describe what kind of political beliefs he had. JonFlaune (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jon, thank you for meticulously assembling all those sources. They prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Breivik's "pro-Israel" stance (quotation marks due to the accurate description of it as something which isn't actually supportive of Israel, but only of its far-right wing political side) is highly relevant to his ideology. Burying this information this far down in the article does, for all intents and purposes, indeed constitute censorshop and despicable POV editing—incidentally "on behalf" of Israel's far-right wing political side. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Christian fundamentalist" again

First things first - the cached version of Breivik's Facebook profile does NOT include the much-ballyhooed description of himself as "Christian". (BTW: Why is the Facebook profile not discussed more prominently in the article? WP policy DOES permit drawing direct and unambiguous conclusions from primary documents, e.g. "the FB page does NOT mention any religion".

The authenticity of a later version of the FB page is subject to considerable doubt. This is reinforced by the politically convenient but bizarre characterization of the crime as "fundamentalist Christian" by Norwegian police. The claim is bizarre because there are essentially no "fundamentalist Christians" in Norway, and Breivik certainly never was a "fundamentalist Christian in any sense. This term appears to have been used to propitiate leftist groups in the U.S.

I believe the "Religion" section as it stands as of this writing is an accurate description of Breivik's religious beliefs. I believe the descriptor "Christian fundamentalist" is a misleading summary and does not belong in the header. I also find it rather distressing that an off-the-cuff description in a news event must stand as established even when found inaccurate in light of more accurate sources becoming available. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This was the statement you edited: "He has been described by authorities as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist." The BBC, Reuters, the New York Times, and numerous other news sources have confirmed the truth of this statement. Deputy Police Chief Roger Andresen made this statement. Please note that the article merely states that "the authorities" have described him as such, which is absolutely correct. You may disagree with the police authorities and the news sources, but your opinions cannot supersede the fact of their statements and the reporting. Lklusener (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And can you explain why this belongs in the header? Especially since that statement, in and of itself, is misleading. Furthermore, does a descriptor that "the authorities" made within the first few hours of the situation trump all information that comes out subsequently? Peter G Werner (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He is a Christian fundamentalist. Period. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, excellent fact-based argument. Has Wikipedia really become reduced to this? Peter G Werner (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's shorten it: He is a Christian. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be great! Every source agrees on this! Peter G Werner (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, that was ment to be a joke. Of course he is a fundamentalist, or radical, or extremist Christian but not an average Christian. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. The section should be based on what reliable sources consider accurate and significant, and the lead should reflect that. Currently, long quotes cherry-picked by certain editors and highly partisan websites like WorldNetDaily are being used to counter reliable sources, implying that the media is not presenting The Truth. This is against our top-level policies. The whole section needs to be rewritten. Prolog (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed WorldNetDaily as a source and have only referred directly to the "Manifesto" itself. Please don't tar me with that brush, thank you very much. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that's the information the investigation conducted by the police authorities in Norway thus far has yielded. It has been quoted in hundreds of news sources. You may disagree with their investigative work or feel that their conclusions may be rendered incorrect by forthcoming discoveries, but these are simply your opinions. If you can provide reliable sources (credible news organizations) which confirm that the description has been rendered incorrect because of further information or police work, then please share them with us. We can then edit the article.

As far as the latest press conference on Saturday was concerned, deputy police chief Roger Andresen is quoted as having said: "What we know is that he is right wing and a Christian fundamentalist.” We can only base the article on information that's been reported in the news. We can't attempt to predict or forecast the news, as it were. Lklusener (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, can you explain, preferably using a secondary RS that explains how the sources got the label wrong, what is misleading about the terminology ? I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps that would help. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I did write about this at length here: Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Religious section. So you're basically asking me to repeat myself. And as for sources, I thought it was consensus that the Manifesto was to be allowed. Breivik quite clearly describes his religious views as "moderate" and speaks somewhat negatively of Christian fundamentalism. The newspaper sources are based on *one* statement from one source made on Saturday morning that was prior to this other information that has since become available. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree he is not a christian fundamentalist, because he has described himself as a "moderate Christian", but pretty much every reliable source says he is. As Prolog said, v not truth.--Cerejota (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the other section. Nevermind then. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So basically what this all comes down to is the idea that "secondary sources trump primary ones", even when those primary sources are allowed according to stated policy and are being quoted in good faith. I think that's bullshit, but if you can show me clear policy in that regard, I guess I'll have to "obey" it. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a somewhat related question. Should we defer to the reporting of reliable sources on the manifesto or allow individual interpretations/quoting from the manifesto? Lklusener (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of interpretation. His statements in the manifesto are quite clear. I do agree that some other editors are going way overboard in quote length, however. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that someone included a passage from the manifesto in which ABB states that he hadn't asked or prayed to God for strength. But, further on in the manifesto, ABB discusses how he had prayed in preparation for his 'act', but this passage was not included. It seems to me that people will include passages that reflect their particular views and leave out those that don't. This is why I am wondering whether we should wait for reporting from reliable sources that is comprehensive and objective. Lklusener (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

why not include both the quotes about praying and not praying, to show the self-contradictions/contrast inherent in his own reports? --Ben Ammi (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how the quotes about praying have any direct relevance to the matter of whether he could be considered a moderate vs fundamentalist Christian. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That was only an example. There is an entire section where he talks about how God serves as a protective shield for him, about "battle verses", and taking up violence in defense of Christendom. He quotes extensively from the Bible. The passages included thus far only cast him as a 'cultural Christian.' In the section starting from pg. 1327, he talks in very personal terms about how the Bible and his faith motivate his actions.

If you are going to include the passages about cultural Christianity, please include these more 'faith-based' passages as well to provide a balanced perspective. Lklusener (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When he says "I have not yet felt a need to pray to God for strength", that's pretty indicative of one's commitment. Praying to God is usually the first thing a Christian does to become a Christian. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So his start of praying was a sign of radicalisation. Please include this. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

pg. 1460: "I prayed for the first time in a very long time today. I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail. He must ensure that I succeed with my mission and as such; contribute to inspire thousands of other revolutionary conservatives/nationalists; anti-Communists and anti-Islamists throughout the European world."

pg. 1344: "I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing mewith the intention to stop and/or kill." Why wouldn't you include these passages as well to provide a balanced perspective? Why ignore these passages? Lklusener (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He believes he is a Knight Templar on a crusade against Islam in Europe. If that isn't fundamentalist... As said by others, a large amount of reliable sources describe him as a Christian fundamentalist. I believe that carries more weight than whether he considers himself to be "moderate". JonFlaune (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, Clive Williams notes in the The Australian that:

"Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement".[8]

JonFlaune (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should what newspapers say carry more "weight"? Especially when newspapers are simply in a loop of endlessly repeating one very early quote. And if anything, his Freemasonry/Knights Templar interests, in other words, esoteric Christianity, go against the term "fundamentalist". Peter G Werner (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if we're going to say that early preliminary assessments are written in stone, I can find verifiable reliable sources that say 9000 people were killed in the 911 WTC attacks! Peter G Werner (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources stating he was not a Christian fundamentalist? If you have sources describing him as an esoteric Christian instead and contesting the description as fundamentalist, I have no problem using a different description. But we cannot rely on editor's personal views. JonFlaune (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, the left-wing Guardian (!!!) has debunked the "fundamentalist Christian" myth circulated by craven Norwegian police (no doubt after a phone call to Washington DC).

Here's a more in depth source.[9] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To who ever is unbolding the text in the lede

Please read WP:BOLDTITLE. Since both the pseudonym and the name of the manifesto redirect here, it is customary to also bold them in the lede, to indicate topicality. Please do not revert.--Cerejota (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

quoting from primary source

What you people are doing is exactly what is not allowed. We can, for example, use the primary source material to get biographical information that is relevant. What we cannot do is quote extensively and engage in original research and synthesis (look for the links above), as these editors are doing.--Cerejota (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we wait for and defer to the reporting of reliable sources on the manifesto, instead of allowing individual interpretations/quoting from the manifesto?

The reason I'm asking is that someone included a passage from the manifesto in which ABB states that he hadn't asked or prayed to God for strength. But, further on in the manifesto, ABB discusses how he had prayed in preparation for his 'act', but this passage was not included. It seems to me that people will include passages that reflect their particular views and leave out those that don't. This is why I am wondering whether we should wait for reporting from reliable sources that is comprehensive and objective. Lklusener (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a more accurate assessment of Breivik's beliefs is likely to come out over the next several days and weeks as secondary sources are able to pour over the Manifesto and other primary sources. However, I'm concerned as to how slavishly we have to stick to police chief Roger Andresen's initial off the cuff description. Do we have to wait until its reported in the media that Norwegian officials come forward and say "Oh, he's not a Christian fundamentalist. My bad." Because that might not happen. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ben Ammi, I believe you were the person who included the passage about ABB not praying or asking God for strength. I apologize if I'm wrong. But, as I stated earlier, later on in the manifesto, he talks about praying during the preparation for the attack, but you forgot to include that passage.

Also, if you're going to include passages where he discusses cultural Christianity, you should also add passages in which he is more forthright about his own religious beliefs such as this one (and also others where he actually quotes Biblical verses in support of violence - I can provide references):

(pg. 1330): "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." Lklusener (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm not Ben Ammi. I'm kind of "in the middle" in wanting to quote the manifesto, but not so extensively as BA does. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ben Ammi had replied to this thread earlier, but his response is now gone. But, as I said, if you're going to include the passages about cultural Christianity, please make sure to also include the passages where he talks more forthrightly about his religious motivations (such as the one I quoted above) and actually quotes Biblical verses to support his violent actions (I can provide page numbers if it will be of help). Lklusener (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What links? It's very hard to understand without context. --hydrox (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess all these reverts are. I'm going to revisit this tomorrow morning with fresh eyes. Hopefully other parties will have cooled down a bit too. Really, there's no need to either get rid of all sourcing from the manifesto, nor quote from it at extensive length. Moderation, please! Peter G Werner (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain. My fear is that I will wake up tomorrow and see him described as an atheist/agnostic/Darwinist who loathed Christianity, as has already been attempted. Lklusener (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there is, or has been, a bias toward representing this confused individual as a "white taliban" / "Christian killer" esp. in such a way that it seems derogatory to even "mainstream" Christianity is clear. He also is clearly a Darwinist, has never denied evolution, and moreover most Christians are Darwinists.--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain and I am sorry to say this but it is a fact: This guy is WHITE and a KILLER and a CHRISTIAN. You wont change facts. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What an unwarranted outburst, kind anonymous user. You won't present or misrepresent the (alleged) facts in such a way that it suggests misleading things about Christians, religious people and/or Norwegians in general. I should ask: why does it offend you to report in the article that ABB was a Darwinist? Doesn't it fit into your preconceived notions of who he is? He's apparently a Norwegian who praises certain secular and certain Christian values, not at all rejecting Darwinism or science. He's not a redneck. Moreover, the suggestions offered in earlier forms of the article were vile in regards to Christians. He may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he necessarily killed in the name of Christ. There are Muslims who kill for non-Islamic reasons, too. And Atheists who kill for non-Atheistic reasons, but rather for say political reasons, or whatever. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustrations, but he does speak fervently about his religious beliefs, even describing himself as a "soldier of Jesus Christ." (I've quoted the passage below) He also states that he is a moderate Christian in other parts of the manifesto. Let's include those passages and also those in which he talks about his faith in personal terms. Or better yet, let us defer to reporting from reliable secondary sources on his manifesto rather than relying on individual interpretations and quoting, which seem to vary so widely.

pg 1329: God will anoint you with his power to go into battle.

If you are operating under a full surrender with God the Father, and walking in all of God's ways and staying out of any serious sins and transgressions against Him - then the next thing you will need to fully realise is that God will now anoint you with His power if you are forced to go into battle with your enemy. The Bible tells us that we are now all good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Whether we want toface 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 underhuman or demonic attack. The daily news will prove that to you without any shadow of adoubt.

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 keep your head in the sand and oppressor after oppressor keep beating you down. The choice is yours." Lklusener (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

His religious beliefs, particularly his own interpretations and descriptions thereof, should indeed be included in the article, along with his (contrasting?) views on Darwinism, as well as his liberal definition of what a "Christian" is: "As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way."--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We should include the passages in which he talks about his religious motivations and describes himself as a "soldier of Jesus Christ" and those in which he talks about cultural Christianity and other definitions of being Christian. Thus far, you've only posted passages that reflect the latter views. If I quoted his words in the religion section, wherein he describes himself as a "soldier of Jesus Christ", would you edit it out? Lklusener (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not object to that / edit that out. Hopefully we/I may also add pertinent, short selections from his words concerning Darwinism as well as his definition of what a Christian is. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Could I f.ex add this section (same as quoted in above message): "As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way." I consider it to be a very illuminating quote, worthy of being represented in the article alongside quotes such as those/that suggested by Lklusener. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I intend to adhere to this message from the top-level editors and will refrain from quoting from the manifesto:

"Attention editors

Please note that the Anders Behring Breivik "manifesto" (2083 - A European Declaration of Independence) is considered a primary source, and its use must adhere to the relevant Wikipedia policy. In short, editors are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate his manifesto. Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source."

We are not permitted to synthesize different passages from the document. I will wait for further direction. Lklusener (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To synthesize=to quote? Or am I missing something? --Ben Ammi (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If a man says he is a "soldier of Allah" then Wikipedia calls him a Muslim.

If a man says he is a "soldier of Jesus Christ" then Wikipedia calls him an agnostic Darwinist.

Well done humanity. Josh Keen (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully reasonable proposal

I am generally weary of including information not in secondary or tertiary sources, but I can see that a good argument has been made for inclusion of primary source material. It is also clear to me that this is a discussion that we will have for the life of this article, which will be long.

So my suggestion is that we create a separate talk sub-page for Manifesto issues.

In that talk page, we would try to discuss any and all inclusions of primary source material, and subject them to the test set out for inclusion (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:BLP, WP:OR etc). We would then discuss and determine the value of the addition, ensure it is not OR or SYNTH, search for secondary sources who say the same, etc.

I think this way we can channel the discussion better, have a centralized discussion, and have a more solid and defendable consensus, rather than the edit war we have now. How that sound?--Cerejota (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I second this proposal. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the PCCTS and Religion sections are starting to look much better. Neutral and agreeable doesn't necessarily indicate truthfulness, but so far so good. More revelations and new info from the courts etc will probably be a boost to the article's integrity.--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather ingenious albeit unusual proposal. I have never seen such implemented – all articles I know have one talk page. I am doutful as whether the sub-talkpage would see enough participation, but I am anyway "in" if this proposal is implemented. --hydrox (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of articles do this, mostly to collect sourcing, for GA/FA, or for complex merger discussions. A box is placed on top, and new discussions are quickly closed and redirected.--Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Debate regarding inclusion or exclusion of passage from Breivik's Manifesto regarding his praise of Al Queda

A question has arisen as to whether or not a passage from Breivik's Manifesto regarding his praise of Al Queda should be referenced in the article. Some feel that Breivik's admiration of Al Qaeda's organizational system (and by implication, his desire to emulate this in his own organization) is noteworthy and worthy of inclusion in the article. Others feel that by including this reference, the Wikipedia readership might somehow be "mislead" by a "skewed" reference that somehow is irrelevant or "unduly weighted". As has been requested earlier in the Breivik article's talk page, please do not remove this cite from the article until after consensus has been reached in this RfC. Scott P. (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, David Duke went to Tehran to conference with holocaust-deniers and draw inspiration therefrom, it's not impossible that ABB drew inspiration from and found positive aspects of Al Qaeda to emulate. Perhaps he considers their "freedom-fighting tactics" emulatable for the purpose of being applied to a much different cause? I will have to read the pages in question closer before adding my final thoughts on this particular. Could you direct us to the pages?--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

scottperry is unfortunately edit warring. he has breached the 3rr policy several times, and starts new threads about this issue over and over again. please see the thread "breivik's praise of bin laden's organization abilities is noteworthy, speaks of the man's ultimate goals".-- mustihussain (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets focus on the content and not the editor. I already warned him of his 3RR violation. He cannot edit this article again for 24 hours or face a block.--Cerejota (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thus the RfC. Others have violated the 3rr rule too on this one. Please let the RfC take its course. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

who? please name another user who has violated this rule on this issue.-- mustihussain (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User Johanneswilm did. I am the one trying to get fresh voices here and to follow WP:Policy via this RfC. Others are vandalizing this talk page by deleting pertinent conversations on this topic. Please see the purple section above that was deleted. Please be civil, all. Scott P. (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Really doesn't matter who else. He did it. If others did it has no bearing on his behavior nor does it excuse it.--Cerejota (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. Thus this RFC. To take this debate away from ad-hominem attacks, stop the talk page vandalism, and to refocus it on the facts of the article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What talk page vandalism?--Cerejota (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not by you, but please see my comment that begins with This Edit below. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question - What are secondary sources saying about this topic? Are they considering this significant enough for mention, using the argument you are making? We must be careful when using primary material not to engage in original research, which is what you introduction to this RfC sounds like. We engage in verifiability, not truth, and we also focus on the relevant according to the reliable sources.--Cerejota (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Answer The secondary source cite from CBS news as listed with the cite states nearly verbatim exactly what is in the cite itself, thus verifiability. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Verifiability of controversial claims requires more than one source, that is reliable, are independent of each other and of the subject, and say the same thing. I have done a cursory search, and have found none. In addition, the CBS source doesn't support your claim that "his desire to emulate this in his own organization" is implied by his admiration of their methods in his manifesto. Since he makes many claims, we cannot make original research picking and choosing them. We should highlight what the sources verifiably highlight. This doesn't seem to be the case with al-qaeda. The sources are simply not there.--Cerejota (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources are only required in controversial claims. This claim is uncontroversial. In fact multiple editors themselves, who are protesting this cite have noted that it does amount to praise of Al Qaeda and do not deny that fact. The only controversy about the inclusion of this claim is the fact that it might point to a parallel between Breivik's motives and Al Qaeda's. I feel that perhaps some anti-Islamic folks might feel that such a parallel is somehow irreligious or just plain wrong, and wish to censor out anything from the article that might suggest such a parallel, despite the fact that it is in the Manifesto, and it is supported by a secondary source. The existence of Breivik's praise for Al Qaeda in his Manifesto is not controversial. Only what the existence of this praise might make people think seems to be at issue. I say, our readers are smart enough to think for themselves, without having to have this important fact censored from them. Scott P. (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And please, by the way, please stop vandalizing this page! Scott P. (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What talk page vandalism ? Provide a diff. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit by User Hydrox selectively deleted (supposedly archived) pertinent discussions regarding this question from this talk page. This appears to me to have been vandalism, as this is not the normal archiving procedure for talk pages and the result of this "archive" seems to me as though it might "skew" this RfC. Scott P. (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, the talk page was reaching 50+ topics. I archived about 50% oldest of these, assuming the editors would salvage them from the archive if they saw fit. This is really bad procedure, I know. Please believe me I did not mean to tamper with the discussion, and I am truly sorry for any inconvenience, but I felt something had to done to keep the talk page readable. --hydrox (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Also, the diff that you linked to does NOT include any unconventional archiving. Closed discussion can be archived, if anything. Did you see that note urging editors to read closed discussions from the archives before opening new ones? --hydrox (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize too then, I've just never seen a talk section archived any other way than simply removing the oldest discussions at the top of the page only, and not selectively removing various sections, not based on their chronological order. Apology accepted. Scott P. (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with mentioning that he admired al-Qaeda for its military organization. But, not in the extent it used to be. I moved it under "influences", as surely he did not mean to say that he politically admires al-Qaeda, only that their organizational abilities was an example for him. --hydrox (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hydrox, thanks for finally allowing this ref into the article, but still, I think that we should not be afraid that our audience might draw the conclusion that both Breivik and Al Qaeda are organizations that are simply politically structured around a strong element of fear. The Third Reich was politically structured around this element. Al Qaeda is structured around this element, and apparently Breivik believes that his organization should also be structured like this. To try to somehow "shield" our readers from this possible conclusion, by deleting or "hiding" the cite seems to me to be un-helpful. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hydrox, I appreciate your offer of "compromise" above, but so that other editors can see what is being debated, I have reset your edit for the time being. Once this discussion has reached a conclusion, and hopefully a consensus, then the reference can be reworked. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I take that as you refusing my compromise. You seem to be unwilling to accept a middle ground, even if I tried. How can you claim lack of consensus when (at least I haven't seen) no single editor is echoing your views? Read WP:DUE and think if it is really relevant to mention al-Qaeda so visibly. We all know he mentioned it in this context, but it was a really tiny, single remark in this vast amount of text (1500+ pages) --hydrox (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the reason that User Teiresia and I feel that this reference is important, and should be in the "Politics" section, is because it points to the underlying basis of "fear based motivations" that both Al Qaeda and Breivik are basing their entire political structures on. To ignore this or try to minimize it, seems to us to be to ignore the primary motivating factor that Breivik is planning on basing the entire movement on that he imagines himself as founding by his acts of terrorism (inciting mass fears). Scott P. (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"because it points to the underlying basis of "fear based motivations" that both Al Qaeda and Breivik are basing their entire political structures on." There you go. That's called original research. --hydrox (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on that comment it also seems that you have an ulterior motive, drawing a political link between al-Qaeda and Breivik. --hydrox (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I give up Hydrox. I simply don't have any more time to argue this any further. Do as you will Hydrox. Take care. Scott P. (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

scott has unfortunately broken the 3-rr policy a couple of times now in less than 24 hours (8 reverts i think). i have just reverted and we're back to square one.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the other organization he mentions as "successful"?-- mustihussain (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The other organization listed there was MEND, apparently a militant "Christian" organization based in the African Niger delta area. Scott P. (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Multiple sources required - Agree that more than one secondary source is required to justify special mention of the Al Qaeda passage in the WP article. There are hundreds of significant commentaries on the manifesto available. If only one, CBS, has focused on the Al Qaeda passage, then that is not enough for WP to also focus readers on that passage. If several significant commentators focus on that passage, then it could be included in this article. If Anders Behring Breivik were a minor figure, and only a handful of major news sources discussed him, a single major source like CBS may be sufficient. But he is not minor. Stated another way: if only CBS focuses on Al Qaeda, that means that hundreds of news sources did not focus on it. --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot is censoring me?

Why has the bot deleted the word "nationalism"!? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&diff=next&oldid=441328218 --89.204.137.166 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's a simple case of edit conflict; feel free to redo your edit. . Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder

The introduction states that Breivik is the "admitted perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, in which he murdered more than 90 people." Murder is a particular legal concept. Until Breivik is tried and convicted wouldn't it be better to state "he killed more than 90 people"?

As I understand it Breivik has admitted his actions but not criminal responsibility. I don't know much about his mental state but if he turns out to be insane it seems possible that he could be found not guilty (and put in an asylum), or perhaps convicted of a lesser offence than murder. Don't we need to be very careful about Biographies of living persons? Iota (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point; I concur.--Ben Ammi (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:WTA.--Cerejota (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is he married?

Is he married? Did he have any girlfriend? Is there any information on his mental instability? What was his occupation, really? Too much is said about his ideological beliefs and too litle about him as a person. I think the latter is much more important. There are people with any beliefs you like, extreme, fundamentalist, etc. but very few of them would commit such an outrage! Olegwiki (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He was single according to his manifesto, although he had apprently had previous relations. Is this mentioning-worthy? He had no occupation after he started preparing for the attack in 2009(?). It's all detailed in the log at the end of the manifesto. --hydrox (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He was a loner, without many other activities other than planning the attacks, discussions on the Internet and occasional video gaming, from what I could find out. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How did he earn his living then if he did not work? Is there any information about him (in Norvegian media, maybe) apart from his own manifesto? I mean interviews with his friends, collegues, etc. I think is is worth mentioning that he is single if confirmed by his manifesto. It is no less important than his views. Olegwiki (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about that, myself, but since he came from an affluent area of Norway, it might be possible he had inherited money. It's likely he lived very frugal except for activities related to planning the deed. Speculating. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This Swedish article is quite clarifying: [10] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrest

Is it right to say that though he was armed, he did not resist and actually surrended to the police? Olegwiki (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source that makes that statement? The news reports I've caught regarding his apprehension have all stated "taken into custody without incident", which isn't the same as him surrendering. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter seems to make that claim, although it's not vey specific: [11] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You will find news reports stating that he surrendered by searching for "Breivik overga seg"...; the literal translation of which into English would be "Breivik surrendered himself". Politiet: Breivik overga seg uten kamp (Lit. transl.: "Police: Breivik surrendered himself without struggle") The police also has stated that he still was in possession of large amounts of ammunition at the time of the arrest (Breivik tatt med store mengder ammunisjon (lit. transl: "Breivik caught with large amounts of ammunition"). ΑΩ (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a wetsuit

It says, at the end of the biography section, that Breivik is wearing a wetsuit in the picture accompanying the text. That must be based upon a misapprehension on the part of some journalist. He is actually wearing a Skins Sports Compression garment. That company website is blacklisted here on Wikipedia on account of spamming, so you'll have to look it up for yourself at store(dot)skins(dot)net/intl/men/active/sport-mens-compression-crom-long-sleeve-top.html ΑΩ (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wet-suit" is widespread - one source is a young man that was on the boat to the island with him. I must admit I thought "Skins" referred to Skinhead ! But his own kit-list agrees with you. Unfortunately IIRC Wikipedia prefers to repeat popular misconceptions, rather than truth ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the relevance of him wearing a compression suit at all? Or was it armour plated or something...

He is an orphan of divorce

He grew up without his biological father. I think this important and was part of his psychological problems making him such a monster killer. --89.204.153.234 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable, verifiable source to support this claim? Please keep WP:OR in mind before attempting to add such to the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He last met and talked to his father in 1995, the year of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma. According to the father his son was at that time talking about leaving Norway for the US. (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080698) His father also was a fairly high level public servant - an economist/diplomat working at the Norwegian embassy in London at the time when Anders Behring Breivik was born. His parents did however separate when he was one year old. According to the statements in that article however, there seems to have been some contact between father and son up until 1995. ΑΩ (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there are many sources describing this[12]. JonFlaune (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Amorning1976, 25 July 2011

Norway does not currently issue consealed carry permits to civilians.

Amorning1976 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but he was presenting himself as a firearms officer - not 'concealed carry'. Thus irrelevant ?--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage of the attacks

I think there should be a section detailing this. Fox news and assorted right wing media had long segments with their "expert" commentators analyzing which "evil" arab muslim group did it, only to reduce the story to a 20 second blurb when it became apparent that the perpetrator was one of their own - a muslim-hating, right wing, zionist, christian. Various news and analytical sites have documented and reported on this rather dramatic change in coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenicese (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there have been many reports on the biased (i.e. Islamophobic attempts to blame muslims without any cause) media coverage particularly in US media, see for instance this article by Christopher Hitchens: http://www.slate.com/id/2299959/ JonFlaune (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be in article for the attacks, rather than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.215.252 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is worth considering. The Guardian published this article an hour ago: Glenn Beck likens Norwegian dead to Hitler youth.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, see the the Glenn Beck talk page.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

why give him this attention

Actually we should silence him, dont give him this privilege with his own wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.160.23 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Respect the viewpoint, but unfortunately Wikipedia is setup to have articles on all notable people and subjects. Unfortunately, Mr. Breivik meets WP's standards for notability. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The understandable but unfortunately inapplicable reasoning of 88.159.160.23 aside, it is still rather questionable why Breivik is deemed an exception to WP:BLP1E. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

One might argue that the two attacks were two separate events. --84.250.8.251 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's only one article on both at the moment. We could theoretically AFD this page and merge it.Teapeat (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That has been tried already, but currently, there are too many people involved who don't really know or care about policy. An admin who redirected the page was overturned and had to endure loads of intellectually dishonest abuse, accusations and threats at ANI. Heck, just look at the section above this one: It's virtually impossible to even address clearcut concerns within the existing article without people immediately arriving to derail the discussion with spurious commentary and ignoring all relevant points. Situations like this make me wish Wikipedia had an actual leadership who would step in and help put an end to the constant wikilawyering, misapplication and outright ignoring of relevant policy and presented arguments. But Wikipedia is basically an anarchic shoutocracy. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I criticized him, but without "intellectual dishonesty", I'd say. Read WP:BLP1E. It is not a blanket ban, but has exceptions that well describe this instance. Wnt (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to your comment in the above section, right? I wasn't talking about you since you commented later. However, your comment falls under the umbrella of "don't really know about policy", see my reply above. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of people telling me I need to read 1E. I've read it. I have no idea why we're ignoring it. I can see no reason for making an exception in this case. Having an article on a person known for a specific incident requires historical perspective; the policy gives the example of John Hinckley, Jr. - well, sure, there's books about him; there's no books about Breivik yet, just tabloids trying to grab bits and pieces of info from blog postings and suchlike. "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" - indeed, and in a month or two, we'll know that. We cannot possibly guess, now, how the coverage will develop.  Chzz  ►  07:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia will only publish things that have already been published somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia, not a news bureau. So therefore I don't feel like we're giving Breivik any unneeded attention. I just read that Breivik requested that his trial would be held open, but this was denied, and it will be held in secret. I feel that this is the matter here, Breivik won't get the chance to make first-hand statements in public. JIP | Talk 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Under the "Writings" section, please add an image of the cover of his manifesto. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald misquote

Why are we allowing the SMH to misquote the deputy police chief, who was describing "information found on Breivik's websites", not Breivik himself? and why is the jpg photo of him compressed so his head looks like an Idaho potato? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WWGB for fixing the picture. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And why do we take the Oslo police department's word for anything when they apparently can't even count dead bodies? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

His manifesto incorporates text from the Israeli Ministry of defence on the Apartheid Wall in Palestine

"What was the reason for establishing the Security Fence Area?...... " is copied from http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/pages/eng/questions.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Accomplises

It's mentioned in the lead that he claims to have had accomplices assist him (and the police have not ruled this out), which seems tremendously important. And yet there seems to be no additional information on that in the body of the article (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

neo-Zionism etc not mentioned in refs

Please point out those additions you've made. I have not found it in the current references. Partucularly Neozionism, communism marxism and socialism Pass a Method talk 07:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Far-right Zionism" is mentioned in the Jerusalem Post ref (along with Marxism) - and thus rather than wikilink to regular Zionism which is very broad politically, an attempt was made to be fair and link to what "far-right Zionism" is usually called - which is neo-Zionism. However, it is now quoted exactly as "far-right Zionism" with the ref to avoid more edit warring. As for communism or socialism, neither is currently used.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide quotes + refs for all the additions you've made. There are around a dozen political motives mentioned, but most don't have refs. You need to give a reference to each specific political motivation. The lede is important. Pass a Method talk 08:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead, it is supposed to be a summary of the article, and ideally you would hardly have any refs within the lead. The paragraph in question was a summary of the political section, which is what it should be. I am more than happy to keep plugging in refs if you demand them, (making the lead harder to read); but if you simply read the article, you will see that the summary is accurate.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead in a contentious BLP like this probably needs refs per WP:LEADCITE. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Marxism" and "cultural marxism". Stuff like that makes all the difference. Pass a Method talk 08:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, you have misquoted the references at least three times. now. With the references, i would save a lot of time. Also, please bring a ref for the 'libertariansim' part. Pass a Method talk 08:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given you another ref for "Marxism" alone, and even included the quote inside the ref, which is apparently what I will have to do, since you are having "trouble" using the (ctrl + f) key board option. + You removed the libertarianism part, if you want a citation you should use and then I can fill in the ref.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Should far right Zionism be in the lead

An objection nhas been rasied to its inclusion in the lead as undue thougts please.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemason

I don't understand why we're not allowed to mention that he was a Freemason on the English-language page. I know for a fact that it is mentioned on at least one other non-English Wikipedia and that there is a community consensus in favor of the mention over there. Besides, one of the earliest pictures of him to become public shows him in full Masonic outfit. And the Norwegian Masonic Order has itself acknowledged that he was a member ; its leader quickly decided to expell Breivik. 76.67.166.111 (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Are You All Idiots?

This article takes any flimsy claim from any newspaper and prints it as gospel. Trying to moderate it in any way is futile. Trying to do any kind of reasobable editing of this article would result in deleting 95% of it. Could people PLEASE PLEASE PLESE stop inserting stuff of the "One newspaper printed this as a possible conspiracy theory. Hence we include it as absolute truth" calibre? The fact that there are very few sources does NOT mean "print everything". It actually means "be careful". Dendlai (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hear here! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) . . . To the rhetorical question, we could answer, "Yes, possibly."

Why is the manifesto not sufficient as a source?

Seeing as the Norway police say Breivik was behind it? [13] [14]? Thanks Daniel1212 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

becaseu the link is dead?Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a WP:PRIMARY source. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.138.160.24, 26 July 2011

The man responsible for the massacre in Norway was a member of a Swedish nazi forum which encourages attacks on government buildings. It was also revealed by local police that he had extreme right wing views who hated Muslims. According to Swedish website Expo Anders Behring Breivik is a member of ‘Nordisk’ which has 22,000 members and focuses on political terrorism. [His Facebook profile] also listed interests such as body-building and freemasonry. [Emphasis added] That’s certainly a mixed bag. And some of that information would seem to hint at a possible extreme leftist position, perhaps anarchism, would it not? It certainly does NOT reflect the views of a conservative Christian, as he claimed to be. It’s also important to note that the terms of American politics are not easily transferable to European politics. Often, the extremes in Europe are communists on the left and fascists on the right. In America, “extreme right wing” has been hijacked to label conservatives who adhere strictly to the Constitution, or who fight for legal immigration. (Some on the American left have even succeeded in making “extreme right wing” synonymous with the Tea Party.) In Europe, however, the term could mean zealous nationalists and militant fascists. So, an “extreme right wing” individual in Europe is not always an “extreme right wing” individual in America. That’s important to note, as the designation will undoubtedly make the rounds in the attack’s aftermath. Considering what we know about Breivik, then, could it be that the term “extreme right wing” is a misnomer? Especially considering that when you start dealing with extremist groups and individuals who fall well beyond the fringe, their beliefs often blur — they handpick a tenant from the right and bastardize it, grab an ideology from the left and skew it, and then create their own belief system. Breivik’s beliefs — and the actions he implemented — may show he and his ideology are as fuzzy as they come. 70.138.160.24 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He is right wing as right wing can be. --89.204.137.135 (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We say what RS say, now if yoou can find some RS saying he is not right wing then we can mention it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

he is christian terorist .edit it

he is christian terorist .edit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmedSoccer (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He's described as both a Christian fundamentalist and a xenophobic Christian nationalist, so I believe that's already covered. JonFlaune (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless he is actualy called a crisitan terrorist by RS we can'tSlatersteven (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Improper subheading

Why is the subheading under Writings named only as "2083", when it is most-widely known under the name "manifesto" (just check this talk page or ask Google)?! As a subheading, the current one is totally useless, perhaps even intentionally misleading. Either give the full title, or (I am all in favour in concise subheadings) change it to "Manifesto" (perhaps until more works claiming the same title and authorship emerge). --178.40.14.188 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Length of manifesto

Different sources are saying that his ‘manifesto’ is either 1516 or 1518 pages long. This is not a vastly important fact and as such I think it should be left out as there is no agreement as to the number of page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• LOL, I believe it is a moot point, too... In fact, the are empty pages, so it depends on how people count those pages: as a book, it would be 1518 pages, as a thesis, it would be 1516...  :-D --178.40.14.188 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Zionism in "Politics" section

It should be mentioned in the Politics section that he was a Zionist. This is an established fact about him and has been mentioned in the lead. Therefore it should be stated in the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableCoaster (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It already says so twice. Open your eyes before posting. Pass a Method talk 23:27, 26 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) 00:20, 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) 00:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Member of the Church of Norway?

External sources, and thus this article, frequently describe him as a "Christian", which is a bit vague. What denomination was he? From what I can gather (my Norwegian is far from fluent) he was actually a member of the Church of Norway. Can anyone confirm/dispel this with reliable external sources? --Mais oui! (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He says that he was baptized Church of Norway at 15, but believes that Norway should have a "reverse-reformation" and go back to Catholicism, detesting the perceived informality and progressiveness of Protestant churches in Norway. This is all in his manifesto, which can easily be found online on PDF form on google. 70.109.187.152 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway is a country where its native-born citizens are considered Christians by default, and you have to tell the government if you want to statistically not be considered a Christian. However as it makes no difference at all to daily life then not many people bother doing so. Anyway, the fact that he describes himself as a Christian makes this a moot point.--EchetusXe 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Echetus, most ethnic Norwegians are considered members of the (state) Church of Norway, and you have to do something actively to leave that church. It used to be quite difficult until recent years. JonFlaune (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So, we know that he was confirmed in the Church of Norway at the age of 15, but was he actually a practising member of that Church as an adult? Many people are baptised and confirmed in churches, but are not actually practising members of those churches as adults.--Mais oui! (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

From his 'compendium':

I have reserved 2000 Euro from my operations budget which I

intend to spend on a high quality model escort girl 1 week prior to execution of the mission.

I will probably arrange that just before or after I attend my final martyrs mass in Frogner Church.

Seems to find the ritual important, but not the conventional morality ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted some changes that removed "Church of Norway" from the infobox. Leaving the Church of Norway requires actively registering that you have left, Breivik did not do this, so he was and is still a member of the church, even if he didn't actually go to church every Sunday. Josh Keen (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

self-admitted perpetrator

why is he mentioned as self-admitted perpetrator? he is plainly a terrorist. does Wikipedia really need to use buzzwords? --Infestor (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He has not been convicted of terrorist crimes and he has not pleaded guilty of such, although his crime has been widely described as terrorism. --hydrox (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, "self-admitted perpetrator" is accurate and descriptive. "Terrorist" is the buzzword here. --99.226.73.18 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The expression "has claimed responsibility for" is altogether too weak when seen in relation to the facts: There is no question what so ever that Breivik himself, at least, is a perpetrator. Whether there could have been others is still a contentious matter, and if this should be stressed, there are surely other ways of doing it than diminishing the assertion that nothing, at this point, suggests anything else than Breivik being a perpetrator. --Benjamil 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamil (talk • contribs)

i totally agree with you benjamil.-- mustihussain (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A man is innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law. If we say anything other then "he has been accused" we are breeching both BLP and his real world legal rights.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

he has confessed after being caught.-- mustihussain (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So no one has ever confessed to a crime they did not commit?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

take a look on this article [15].-- mustihussain (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And? This does not say the police saw him shoot any one (in fact it says he fired no shots at the police) not does it say anthing about people never making false confesions. In fact this article goes to great pains to not attribute any crimes to him.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

that's nonsense. clearly, you don't read norwegian.-- mustihussain (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

jeez, i detest the wordplay in wikipedia. in some cases, kill hundreds/thousands and your name will be mentioned as guerilla/freedom fighter. way to go! --Infestor (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Where has that been said? I ask you to withdraw that statement.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

Could somebody that knows how it would be pronounced please add an IPA representation of his name. Mortein | Talk 06:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

[ɑndɛʂ bɛːɾɪŋ bɾɛj'ʋiːk] in Standard Eastern Norwegian, I suppose. Might need checking. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As a Norwegian, I would have transcribed it as [ɑndɛrs bɛːrɪŋ brɛj'ʋiːk]. Due to Norwegian phonology, in Eastern Norwegian the sound 'rs' merges and becomes something akin to 'sh'. (Even if the r is the last sound of a word, and the s is the initial sound of the following word.) To most Norwegians, it would sound awkward if a saying the name in English were to pronounce it as 'Andesh', as this merging of sounds is not a feature of English phonology.

In my Western Norwegian accent, I would pronounce it as [ɑndɛʁs bɛːʁɪŋ bʁɛj'ʋiːk]. Because r can be pronounced in many ways in Norwegian, I would suggest using a "generic" letter "r" rather than one denoting a particular pronounciation. V85 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the transcription after reading the article Norwegian phonology. I'm familiar with Norwegian, particularly Bokmål and "standard østnorsk" (Standard Eastern Norwegian), but I'm Swedish myself. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the IPA to ['ɑnəʂ 'beːɾiŋ 'bɾæɪʋiːk]. I'm a linguist and a native speaker of Standard East Norwegian. The 'd' is never pronounced in 'Anders'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.66.244 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The photo is not neutral - change it

The main photograph in the article is in elegant suit - it glorifies Breivik. He made what he made to became famous, to became a "Hero". The photo in the article should not portrait him "aristocrat" and Übermensch - this is what he wanted us to do! Please change it to more neutral one. (es_uomikim (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Is there a free image running around out there besides that one that would serve better? WP:FAIR may be a limiting factor as to what photo may be used in the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have always been struck with this photo looking like a movie star. Other photos are not so glorious. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so if there is no other photo maybe the second one - where he poses as a shooter - is the better one? Actually he WAS a shooter rather than a movie star or a hero. The "intelligent, handsome, nice young man" self-portrait is inappropriate in what he's done. And it portraits him in a way he wanted to show himself - as a hero; let us not help him in it! (es_uomikim (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

In his manifesto, Breivik specifically mentioned the need to look good on Wikipedia. Let's not allow him to do this. 85.220.49.148 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly agree. The picture also appears to be somewhat dated, as more recent pictures show an older and fatter Breivik. As long as permission isn't an issue, or can be obtained if it is, I believe we should be using the photograph of Breivik looking out the window of the police cruiser. It's the most recent and as for social contexts the most accurate. If there's any other reason to choose a picture, let me know. Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! The captured Breivik in the car window hints at the event, not just him "looking good in Wikipedia" .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

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™.

Now, brothers (and sisters) in the Christian faith: by contract with our God, we are obligued to speak truth. This guy is a Christian fundamentalist and a Christian terrorist. That is the truth, whether we like it or not. Could you please stop denying and downplaying that he is using the bible in his own way to explain why a sadistic mass murder is a good thing? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This entry should probably be deleted. It is proselytizing, interpetative, speculative, incompliant with the style guide (as I understand) and dubious to the max. Incidentally, a person can be a Christian and a terrorist without being a "Christian terrorist", just as one can be a Darwinist and a terrorist without being a "Darwinist terrorist". Breivik's writings give grounds for doubting all the points you presumptively raise. You also appeal to a personal interpretation of a contract between yourself and your god as binding upon other users, which won't fly. Moreoever, we are all trying to speak the truth; apparently we don't all agree with your interpretations of what the truth is!--Ben Ammi (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not the same stance when it comes to muslim terrorists? --89.204.137.166 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

huh? (As far as I know, the "same stance" is taken in regards to all peoples, by Wikipedia. If you have problems with Wiki articles on Muslims, then go fix those instead.) The initial post by Rursus is anecdotal, containing unproven, disputed claims. Moreover, Rursus' contract(s) with his god is irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Ben Ammi (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also WP:BLP to consider. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As of now, the sources say he was motivated by what he saw as Christian motives. His manifesto is chock full of Christian themes and symbology, and I haven't seen any sources that indicate those sources to be in error. It is not up to us to decide what we believe about him or not. Ours is the realm of verifiability, not truth. Let's all assume Good Faith, and go with the sources. This is a new event, and I'm sure more information will arise. Now is not the time for original research, sanitizing, or political POVs to carry the day.204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on Anders Behring Breivik should mention that he is fucking right-wing whack job who, like all racist nutters, should be hung. Cheers. 86.141.0.233 (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources say that experts describe the acts as right-wing terrorism.[16] BTW we treat terrorist attacks by Muslims in the same way. Arab terrorist attacks in the 1980s by the Abu Nidal organization, the PLO, etc. are never described as Islamic terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course we don't treat terrorist attacks by Muslims the same way. Check Category:Islamic_terrorism - many of those attackers could be described as "nationalists" or "cultural Muslims" or "left-wing extremists". But Wikipedia does not say that.. it says "Islamic terrorist". How many "Islamic terror" groups cite the liberation of the Palestinian Occupied Territories as one of their main aims? Well, that is a geopolitical goal, not Islamic. By the arguments here, should they all be classified as "geopolitical terrorists" or "cultural Muslims", rather than Islamic?

The question of whether the attackers are cultural Muslims (or right-wing/left-wing, or liberal/conservative, or have geopolitical goals) is very rarely discussed on Wikipedia, and never used as a reason to exclude groups or individuals from being classed as "Islamic terrorists" in the way that editors are arguing Breivik should excluded from being classed as a "Christian terrorist". Josh Keen (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is where falcon asked me to post my observation that Breivik likely hasn't called himself a terrorist and untill he's been convicted we must walk lightly. --Protostan (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not he calls himself a terrorist is irrelevant. I doubt that many terrorists do. However, that doesn't change the fact that he fits the definition for the category Christian terrorist. He's a self described Christian who committed an act of terrorism to advance his anti-Islamic immigration views. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since wikipedia got sued the rules are far more harsh though in all fairness the accused hasn't yet been convicted and juding by the amount he's alledged to have written he seems like the type that would sue. Please read: WP:BLP and if you still don't like the rules of wikipedia work to have them changed (let me know and I'll likey suport you). --Protostan (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bringing past lawsuits (that you fail to name or link to) doesn't win your argument or change policies. On categorization, BLP only states that self-identification is needed for religious beliefs and sexual orientation. Behring has identified as Christian, and being a terrorist is neither a religious belief (even if religiously motivated), nor is it a sexual orientation. Thus, self-identification does not apply and is not needed as per BLP. That said, the point regarding "criminals" states that someone should be convicted, and not have had that conviction overturned. Behring has been accused, has basically admitted responsibility for the attacks, but has not been convicted. It's possible that on those grounds the "terrorist" portion of the category label should be removed until the trial, but his lack of self-identification is irrelevant to the BLP policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Making the matter only more complex is his steroid abuse. Can a clinically insane person be classified as a terrorist? --Protostan (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism is a motive and intention of results, so yes. Also, that's a serious jump to say that steroids have rendered him "clinically insane." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since that's how Breivik's lawyer has described him it's not much of a jump at all. --Protostan (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big jump. It is a defense claim being made by the lawyer, but not a medical or clinical determination made by anyone. As has been discussed elsewhere on this talk page, there is no basis to state in this article that he is clinically insane, only that his lawyer has made the claim. Regardless, it wouldn't change whether what he did was determined to be an act of terrorism anymore than if Mohammed Atta had been shown to suffer from schizophrenia. You also have no basis that I've been able to find linking his steroid use to any claims of insanity, so that may constitute OR on your part. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal developments [Arraignment hearing on July 25]

Some material on today's closed doors court proceedings should be added:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080768

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080747

According to the court decision today, Breivik received 8 weeks of jail in solitary confinement:

Breivik er varetektsfengslet i åtte uker - fire uker i full isolasjon.

Also note:

På spørsmål om straffskyld fra dommeren, svarte 32-åringen at han erkjente de faktiske forhold, både for eksplosjonen og for massakeren på Utøya, men har erkjenner ikke straffskyld.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please translate the above for us non-Swedish speakers? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence above is norwegian, not swedish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.88.58 (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik er varetektsfengslet i åtte uker - fire uker i full isolasjon.

Breivik is sentenced to confinement/custody/jail for eight weeks — four in total isolation.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the initiative of running the second statement through Google Translate, and the proper translation of the second statement would appear to be along these lines (correct what's in error, please!):

When asked by the judge, the 32-year-old said that he acknowledged the facts regarding the explosion and the massacre of Utøya, but did not acknowledge guilt.

--Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik has not been "sentenced" - what happened today is that the court approved a request from the police to keep him in protective custody for eight weeks. 90.149.37.62 (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

På spørsmål om straffskyld fra dommeren, svarte 32-åringen at han erkjente de faktiske forhold, både for eksplosjonen og for massakeren på Utøya, men har erkjenner ikke straffskyld.

Asked by the judge regarding legal responsibility, the 32 year old answered that he confessed to the factual curcumstances, both regarding the explosion and the Utøya massacre, but that he does not confess to being legally responsible.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the material in the lead dealing with today's detention hearing. This is at least an improvement, but I'm still not happy with it — one can still get the impression that the court decided to detain Breivik because he claims to be in contact with other extremists.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a clarification to the heading.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User 90.149.37.62 wrote:

Breivik has not been "sentenced" - what happened today is that the court approved a request from the police to keep him in protective custody for eight weeks.

Please put new text under old one. Insertions like this are confusing, and could easily be overlooked. Yes, your'e right—but obviously, the request was from the prosecutor, not the police.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The court's ruling.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Who Added "Christian" and "Conservative" to Norway Shooter's Facebook Page Yesterday?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/who-added-christian-and-conservative-to-norway-shooters-facebook-page-yesterday.html -- 91.39.251.54 (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That blog source can't be used in a WP:BLP. Please find quality secondary reliable sources that discusses the issue if you want it included. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That blog is known for bullshitting. It praises the same creed Breivik does. --89.204.137.230 (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the blog is actually trying to fool us. If you look at the two images presented you can clearly see that the one presented as the "earlier" one is taken from a non logged in state, while the "later" image is taken from a logged in state. As any facebook user would know, profile information can be set to differ depending on if the viewer is logged in or not. Thus, it is reasonable to assume this discrepancy was the result of such a setting rather than a grand conspiracy. Cute trick though. 79.136.23.59 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of taking the word of a corrupt and incompetent Norwegian policeman, one can go directly to Breivik's actual Facebook profile (still cached by Google) - it does NOT include the much-repeated description of Breivik as "Christian": The description of Breivik as "Christian" was apparently added to the profile after Breivik's arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFlier (talk • contribs)

Conspiracy theories can be noted if and only if they are discussed in reliable sources (verifiability, not truth). And even then undue weight must be avoided. It is not acceptable to counter a multitude of reliable souces with blogs or original research. Prolog (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Either provide reliable sources or don't bother posting anything here because it's a waste of time. The talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article based on Wikipedia's policies/guidelines and reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dfukNGwFw5YJ:https://www.facebook.com/people/Anders-Behring-Breivik/100002651290254+breivik+site:facebook.com&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com does not mention Christian as a religion, not logged in nor out. --84.137.14.187 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How does this cache show what information one would get while logged in to facebook? I can only see the looged off version. 79.136.23.59 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Document Checksums

Anonymous is waging a campaign to destroy the original document through obfuscation. They are asking people to modify and disseminate the document. For purposes of historical preservation, here are the checksums from the original .docx:

MD5: 7a74e156aefb45416ea057ce19dfe4e9

SHA-1: 66074530de42bf3b3b38d3d0b1aed1c5868e328b

SHA-2 256: b45166c6c5c9a533d32ccd4bce06d1c070cc780238830837cd0db221a54874b8

SHA-2 384: 1c3d9b32afe0f2cd35edfe74df34b19a86b29475c1ff30491fb008d6f68f618914ce1411120c51ef5cc42089a6eb7c41

SHA-2 512: 93b924efdb5cb806ce853ef1c21ea2b693cc5a3403d4d170dffa647b8621aea4f9416aa4b3f2370edc74130dba279121d88b76fe198ee927558cc3fd8fbb22c4

I have downloaded the PDF, how do I a checksum of this document? --89.204.137.230 (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)BTW: I am using Win7

• Well, I believe that it is quite useless and irrelevant, but if someone really wishes to have the checksums, here they are:

MD5: 9e72e26916c20481a1f6e4781fd4d505

SHA-1: 12deae65095b3959e42a27247652073bfe85cc83

SHA-256: 5bc6b6e3645e5dcedbc30a30956dcb69d353f07c9d58b09fa59d92a53fc1192c

SHA-384: 874dab78596a23a6ddfc706890ad616a2ec8daaf266af0ca15b61a63418711f830d206689d044cddb11d53e363237720

SHA-512: 5f1cc991a343a38c6c2234ce3bd2b2b16c40bc933f1fcd1710843eef50b91ba5c37470b0d035019616fdb34bb9e3d11ceed7a437eade9eb079aa95b62da80564

--178.40.14.188 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is useless and irrelevant? --89.204.137.205 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he is referring to the PDF checksums. They are useless and irrelevant because the PDF was not the original document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.65.244 (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fouinei, 26 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} The french version of this page seems to describe more pricesely the religious point of view of Anders Behring Breivik. I suggest to add to the existing sentence "On his Facebook profile, Breivik describes himself as a Christian.[16]", the following one: " (...) as a Christian, even if it appears from his writing that he's closer to atheism or agnosticism, with only a historical cultural christianism part.

As a reference, these are few sentences of his "European Declaration of Independence":

"As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order."[3]

Fouinei (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

_{At the moment not protected. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)}

Zionist in the lead or not?

Do you support or oppose adding that Breivik is a zionist in the lead or intro? Please do not vote below the disccusion section. Pass a Method talk 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I am opposed because his video upload did not mention zionism or anything related to zionism. His police report did not mention anything remotely related to zionism. His activity prior to the attack did not have anything related to zionism. The article already states he is pro-israel so this would conflict with WP:UNDUE. It would clog the article to add "zionism" in the lead because he supports dozens of other political organizations too: such as the NDL, EDL, the International Freedom Alliance, he supports the Army of Republika Srpska, Knights Templar, Crusade terror organizations, Democratic Party of Japan etc. so this would clog the intro. If the consensus becomes inclusion, then I will add all his dozen other political affiliations mentioned. Plus, none of the other wikipedia languages mention anything related to zionism. Pass a Method talk 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

its not a political organisation, its a political ideology.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I support its inclusion, an RS makes the claim (the JP) and most of the objections above are synthasis (I.E. its no9t mentione here and there so its not important).Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's probably undue weight. There are so many articles out there, we can source pretty much anything, so that's not a reason to include it. Some judgement is needed, and I don't think it's a major enough point to include it in the lead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now included the claim in the text of the artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It says Zionism in the by-line of the article in the JP. Not quite sure how this could qualify as undue weight. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but don't complan later on when the lead is clogged and congested with 20-or-so political movements, because all his other affiliations are added to the lead. Pass a Method talk 15:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not a political movement its a political ideology.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is Nazi crap from Metapedia. Breivik's message is targeted at neo-Nazis. What he says is this: Abandon your hatred of Jews and start hating Arabs instead and you will be socially acceptable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. – He supports Zionism, but that does not make him a Zionist. He also supports Christianity, but that does not make him a Christian. In fact he is not a Christian, more likely an Atheist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• INCLUDE No doubt about his zionism, just read his manifesto and the blogs he refers to. --89.204.153.168 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Include - the Jerusalem Post (hardly a biased source against Zionism) titled an entire article around the fact that he supports "far-right Zionism", not the regular kind. That is why it should be in the lead - so readers will understand that he does not support mainstream Zionism.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good point, but may be a tad synthy. We don't now he does not support mainstream Zionism.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's quite evident that he doesn't support "mainstream" Zionism, he supports the Israeli far-right, likely only a very small minority of Israelis. Tony Karon of TIME has written an article on this[17]. I think it's a good idea to make it very clear that he supports far-right Zionism, not the moderate kind (just like he believes in some extreme ideas he claims to be Christian, not in mainstream Christianity). JonFlaune (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that this ssource does make that clear. It makes it clear that he bleives in Zionism as represented by the right wing of zionism, not that he does not agree with mainistram Zionism (after all what is Zionism's aim, a Jewish homeland something he supports). What he seems to object to is multiculturalism withing such a homeland. Now what percentage of zionists (as opposed to Jews) oppose that?Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The more we learn about him the more serious his mental illness seems. I'm not sure if we can designate someone with serious mental illness as having an ideology. --Protostan (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment From all I have read (also in Norwegian sources) is basic "creed", if you like, was a deep, intense hatred of Islam. Several things followed from this: his support for the Serbian side in the Balkan wars, and his strong support for Israel/Zionism. If we are to use this in the lead, it should to be in this context. On a local note: lots of people in Norway could be described as "far-right Zionist" (I am not kidding), however, support for the Serbian side in Balkan war, I would say is extremely rare in Norway. Since most things stems from his hatred of Islam, I think that should be first. Say: "He was a right-wing Islamophobic who developed a deep sympathy and support for Serbia and far-right Zionism". Something like that. Also note: he wasn´t really anti-Imigration ---as long as the immigrants were not Muslims! And as for "being mental"; the common belief among the local commentators with knowledge of Norwegian law, is that it will be extremely difficult to have him judged "criminally insane" (Ie not responsible for his action). Especially the long planning period will count against this. And if the courts treats him as "sane", ie accountable for his actions/beliefs, then so must we. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose he was not a practicing Zionist (a member of any Zionist organization, a participant in any pro-Israeli events, etc.) I his pretty long manifesto he puts a few words supporting Israel that Israeli-based media found notable. He also e.g. put quite a few positive words about Vladimir Putin and pro-Putin Nashi youth organizations. Quite a few of Russian bloggers and media-persons found it very notable but I do not think it is a lead material (at least not in English wiki). We do not want to move all of his 1500 pages of the manifesto in the lead, do we? In the lead there should be things that defines him: terrorism, islamophobia, racism, xenophobia. In the body we could inform about other peculiarities of his "political philosophy". Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Er, what exactly is a "practicing Zionist"? Which organisations have the monopoly on being "Zionist"? He was an active member of the leading pro-Zionist forum in Norway, attended their RL meetings, discussing plans for starting a magazine with its owners and so on. No, we don't have the 1500 pages of the manifesto in the lead, merely the ideas that reliable sources have reported as his core political beliefs. Zionism is one of them. JonFlaune (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Do what Huldra recommends. Just "he's a Zionist" isn't correct, we need background included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not stated anywhere that "He's a Zionist", it's all stated in context and citing the Jerusalem Post ("His ultranationalist manifesto lays out his worldview, which includes support for varying degrees of cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, anti-Islamization, "far-right Zionism", and Serbian paramilitarism.[10][14] It argues for the violent annihilation of Islam, "cultural Marxism", and multiculturalism, to preserve a Christianized Europe.") JonFlaune (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The first paragraph of the JP article

“1,500 page manifesto credited to Breivik, accused of killing spree, lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism. “

Third paragraph

“in the 1,500-page tome, which mentions Israel 359 times and “Jews” 324 times, Breivik lays out his worldview, which includes an extreme, bizarre and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism and venomous attacks on Marxism and multi-culturalis”

In fact it’s mentioned twice. So how is my quote not in the source, when its a straight cut and paste?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is a Jewish-Israeli newspaper. So it is not directed to all readers, but Jewish ones. There is not a single non-Israeli newspaper that described Breivik as a zionist. Please find a non-jewish newspaper Pass a Method talk 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, the JP is an RS and we can report what it says. I sugest of you disagree to take this to RSN. However a second source has been found. I would also warn you that you are in danger of edoit warring ove thisSlatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but JP caters to jewish readers. Why doesn't the BBC, Washington Post, The Gurdian, Associated Press or any other newspaper describe him as a zionist? Its because he is not a zionist. His video and report indicates he only bothers about Europe. Nothing to do with Zionism. Pass a Method talk 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We report what RS say, irregardelss of their readership or target audiance. Thgere is also a nono jewsish source (not that it should matter).Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowly these discussions are becoming tiresome. We have addressed this issue several times now, and each time a multitude of sources have favored the inclusion, while the opponents have not cited any sources at all, just offered their unsourced, personal opinion. For convenience, I'll just paste the sources from one of the recent discussions:

His support for Israel is an extremely important part of his Islamophobic worldview, that needs to be discussed. As he states in his manifesto, this is a core idea of his,

"I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now). Islam must be re-classified as a political ideology and the Quran and the Hadith banned as the genocidal political tools they are" (p. 650)

"A modern cultural conservative (nationalist), anti-Jihad right wing alternative is emerging in Western Europe. A majority of Western European right wing groups are all anti-Islamisation and pro-Israel" (p. 1400)

An article in the Financial Times[18] from yesterday discusses the rise of "a new type of right-wing extremism" which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam, and asserts that the killer personifies this type of extremism. As the Huffington Post points out:

"Today, Europe faces a new threat. The pan-European anti-Muslim movement includes leading individuals who embrace "Judeo-Christian values" and express their undying support for Israel instead of the anti-Semitism that is so central to the neo-Nazi movement."[19]

And as Israel National News notes,

"Breivik called himself a strong supporter of Zionism, praised Theodor Herzl the founder of Zionism, and attacked the European political establishment because he saw it as being anti-Israel"[20]

Der Spiegel describes the movement he is part of as:

"pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel -- but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist"[21]

Like the European anti-muslim pro-Israeli far-right, and the far right in Israel itself, Breivik of course is critical of "leftwing Jews", stating:

"Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us [...] So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists" (Jerusalem Post)

The Jerusalem Post concludes that he

"lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"[22]

The Australian sums it all up:

"Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[23]

I understand that "Whatever 'support' for Israel Anders Behring Breivik may have had in his abominable mind, it is not any kind of support we want" as it is said in an interview with JTA, but we do not censor information some people don't like. It is important to describe what kind of political beliefs he had. Also, countless other sources can be found, but I think these are more than enough to illustrate the point. JonFlaune (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he also had political beliefs in support for NDL, EDL, the International Freedom Alliance, the Army of Republika Srpska, Knights Templar, Crusade terror organizations, Democratic Party of Japan, Sixth Republic of South Korea etc. and many more. Are you willing to add them all to the lead? Pass a Method talk 15:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are political movements not political ideologys.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Slaterseven, also, if reliable sources demonstrate that these beliefs formed part of his key ideology, I would have no problem with adding that to the introduction (although, I think some of these beliefs are already covered by other descriptions that are included, i.e. Christian fundamentalist/nationalist and so forth). JonFlaune (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Non Jewish sources

http://www.islamdaily.org/en/default.aspx

http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/07/norway-massacre-and-nexus-of.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/121823-oslo-attacker-anders-breivik-eur-rights-hate-filled-rhetoric.html

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=244892

Is that enough for you?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No its not enough for me. Go read my reply here to find out why Pass a Method talk 16:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I find your method of splitting up and sequestering the discussion on various editor talk pages confusing. Could we not agree to discuss the matter here on the talk page of the article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you reply does not explain why you do not agree with these sources being adequate for the claim. Exactly what is you object to abut these sources? Also (and how many time do I have to say it) you are talking about political organisation, not ideologies. The EDL is mentioned as it is part of the right (for example), right is mentioned in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I already said it many times. It will clog the lead if we add all the political movements/ideologies he supports because there are so many Pass a Method talk 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Saddhiyama Sorry, but Slatersteven is annoyingly squeezing himself into every debate today so i was trying to escape from him. It seems he has a neurological need to repeat himself, with confusing spelling mistakes by the way Pass a Method talk 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Restict discusion to the subject of the artciel, I have responded to this on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No it won't because we do not include political movements or organisations, only ideologies. It’s only a problem because you are insisting on making it one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As sources have demonstrated, his political beliefs consist of about four or five key ideologies. As The Australian puts it: "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[24] We could simply use that quote. Also, why exactly do you believe Israeli/Jewish sources are unacceptable? (The Financial Times, and many other sources including Der Spiegel, The Huffington Post, etc., discuss him as a personification of "a new type of right-wing extremism" (Killer personifies rise of new far-right) which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam) JonFlaune (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it’s a workable compromise it seems to me that no justifiable reason has been given for objecting to far right Zionism beyond I don’t like it. There is no policy reason to exclude the phrase.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link that says Hufftington post and Financial times said Breivik is pro-israel? Even if these sources do say that, i dont think it has enough weight (WP:WEIGHT) to be in the lead Pass a Method talk 17:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant unless you can provide a wiki policy that says these are the only sources we can use (also you have stated that even if they did you would not accept it, so why ask? You are basically saying that you will not accept it no matte how many sources we find, that is against policy). So you accept it should be in the article, just not in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes i think its too irrelevant to be in the lead. Theres many things in the main text but not in the lead. Pass a Method talk 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But it should go in the body of the article, see below.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

• Wiener Zeitung describes him as "a pro-Israeli right-wing extremist, who admires Churchill and a Norwegian anti-Nazi resistance fighter, a Christian Knight Templar and fighter against Islam, who is also a Freemason"[25]
• Christopher Hitchens notes that Breivik has "declared himself a passionate pro-Zionist as well as a sworn foe of all sorts of Islamization"[26]
• Dagbladet Information notes that Breivik's worldview "is anti-Muslim and anti-elitist, and its adherents support the state of Israel on the assumption that the country is a last bastion against Islamism."[27]
• Sydsvenskan notes that Breivik describes himself as "a sworn opponent of Islam, racism and Marxism, and a strong supporter of Christianity, cultural conservatism and Israel."[28]
• Tony Karon in TIME: Norway Terror Accused Breivik on 'the Jewish Question'
• Al Jazeera describes him as "virulently anti-Muslim and pro-Israel"[29]
• Massimo Introvigne writes that: "If Islam is Breivik’a archenemy, Judaism – or, rather, a quite imaginary Judaism, represented as a force mainly devoted to fight Islam – is depicted as a main friend and resource. Breivik is fanatically pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. He believes that the Jews are the most noble and brave Westerners. As a consequence, he hates Hitler."[30]
• Now even Abraham Foxman warns against "anti-Muslim Israel lovers", as the JTA reports[31]

JonFlaune (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Solution

Lead

"Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[32]"

Body

"He claims that the European Union is a project to create "Eurabia" and describes the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as being authorised by "criminal western European and American leaders". The Jerusalem Post also describes him as pro-Israel and strongly opposed to the "Islamisation of Europe". Saying his his manifesto included "extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"."

This both keeps the term (used in multiple RS) but removes it from the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a reasonable compromise (the last sentence ("JP also describes him [...] Saying his manifesto") needs to be tweaked). JonFlaune (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Body

"He claims that the European Union is a project to create "Eurabia" and describes the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as being authorised by "criminal western European and American leaders". The Jerusalem Post also describes him as pro-Israel and strongly opposed to the "Islamisation of Europe". He has been accused of an extreme creed of Islamophobia and of far-right Zionism."

Any better?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How about: The Jerusalem Post describes him as pro-Israel and strongly opposed to the "Islamisation of Europe", and asserts that his manifesto includes "extreme screed of Islamophobia" and "far-right Zionism". -- JonFlaune (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Problom is that its not only the JP saying this. But I can live with this slight innacuracy if it helps reach a compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The JP lead paragraph says that his manifesto "lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism." JonFlaune (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I didn't read your comment properly. I agree others are saying this, but it's better to quote a source directly. JonFlaune (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay but i will edit the lead part so we dont get anything mixed up. You can edit the body-main text Pass a Method talk 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You know what?I like jonflaunes proposal Pass a Method talk 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK thats the text we run with. I'll leave PassaMethod to edit the lead as he has placed first dibs on it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel" doesn't make grammatical sense in the sentence, plus "far-right Zionism" is a direct quote to the source, no need to paint all pro-Israelis with his brush. You can be "pro-Israel" without being a far-right Zionist.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Many sources describe him as pro-Israel in a similar way to many sources describing Muslim terrorists as Muslim. It's not our fault/brush. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree tehre are sources that say he is pro-Israle, and I fail to see what does not make gramatical sense.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the sentence, "pro-Israel" is not an "ism" or an ideology like the others.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Huldra had the most logical and reasonable solution above. I agree with him 100%. It's important to note that his primary, driving force, was a deep intense hatred of Islam. His support of Serbian Nationalism and Zionism only followed from that. If we're going to include it in the lead it should be in that context. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Result

There are currently 7 opposes and 4 inclusion votes. Does this mean i can delete the "far-right zionist" part in the lead? Pass a Method talk 10:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed in principle to the compromise above.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

yes, but since that compromise four editors have opposed the zionist label Pass a Method talk 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a vote. We have cited at least 15 reliable sources favoring the inclusion. The opponents have cited zero sources and zero policy. We don't remove material just because some people don't like it. It's not sufficient to merely "oppose" something if you are unable to cite any sources (and/or policy) which support your point of view. So far in this discussion, there are 15 sources favoring the inclusion and no sources/valid arguments against. JonFlaune (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Your account is barely five days old. Where the hell have you come from? Have You heard about Wikipedia:Consensus? Pass a Method talk 15:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you heard of citing sources? Where are your sources? I've not seen any. JonFlaune (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jon is correct. Consensus is based on policy and sources. If someone's opinion isn't supported by policy and sources it isn't part of the consensus. That is how it works. It's not a democracy. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but i dont need to bring sources, since i'm not adding anything to the article and since the most prominent newspapers have refrained from mentioning anything related to zionism. His youtube video states nothing related to zionism whatsoever and is focused on Europe solely Pass a Method talk 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finding yet another source (Tony Karon in The National (Abu Dhabi)) which supports the inclusion of his views on Israel/Zionism, stating that he sees Zionists "as an essential ally in his global struggle" (my emphasis). Indeed you would need to find sources that contested the fact that Zionism is an important influence -- as now stated by close to 20 sources cited on this talk page and recognized by sources such as The Jerusalem Post[33], the JTA[34] and even the staunchly Zionist Israel National News[35] -- along with "cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, anti-Islamization, and Serbian paramilitarism" which are currently included in the introduction. There are far more sources supporting the inclusion of Zionism than "Serbian paramilitarism" btw. As a matter of fact, his support for Israel/Zionism is the best sourced fact in the entire article (due to constant attempts to delete it by some), also as far as demonstrating its significance is concerned (I wonder why no one is constantly trying to delete his support for Christianity, Serbian nationalism etc.). JonFlaune (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: The above comment refers to a source which was deleted following my response. The source in question is [36]. An editors' own interpretation of his Youtube videos is of course not a source at all. In his manifesto, he sums up his ideology, stating that "A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects". JonFlaune (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)