Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Just disgusted

Wikipedia:Soapbox
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is supposed to be about getting the available information to the reader, not first and foremost deciding what your opinion is about the topic. It's supposed to provide knowledge, not control what the readers do by selectively offering only such information as is regarded as good for state order. We had a less sensationalistic photo of Breivik up here before from his Facebook page, part of his campaign to look "conservative" to avoid being scrutinized while buying chemicals - see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_5#File:Anders_Behring_Breivik.jpg. They deleted that page because there was an image on Commons; they deleted the Commons page out of some kind of copyright paranoia that because he's sitting down there must be some unknown professional photographer involved Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_(Facebook_portrait_in_suit).jpg - then they tell us that including his picture with the gun (which they decided a professional photographer couldn't have taken because it looked too dodgy!) would encourage copycat killings! And so they delete that. Openly (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_action_required_on_Anders_Behring_Breivik) and unapologetically using full-protection to endorse their preferred version of the article. This kind of elite expert gamesmanship in the hands of deletionists is making just a mockery out of Wikipedia. There's nothing here they're not going to destroy - it's all just a question of when. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I am fully with you. In fact, I was blocked yesterday because of User:Martin Hogbin's paranoia. Apparantly I have tried to glorify Breivik by undoing his edits when he removed the image and I placed it back. He removed it three times a row, and I removed it three times in a row. As a result, I ended up getting blocked for 24 hours. Next time someone commits a similar crime, I'll be the one to blame, if I have to believe certain people. Polozooza (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Concur with your sentiments, but I'm more optimistic. They won't win, not in the end... information wants to be free (pedant note: ignoring heat death of universe) Egg Centric 17:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) It's not "us vs. them", it's sanity versus insanity. And insanity and populism often succeed where reason fails. Anyway, I'm getting tired of these endless discussions so I'm just going to leave this talk page and the article. Before I end up receiving another unfair block as a result of someone's hysterical reaction at my edits. :P Polozooza (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Although obviously I agree with your position, it does look like you had a revert at 19:43 on August 17 before the 3 reverts each from you and Hogbin the next day. Though it may be unintentional, it looks like it did break 3RR, and I have to admit the need for the rule because it helps head off more heavy-handed admin interventions in edit wars such as we just experienced. Wnt (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Regardless of one's position to the underlying problem, we have the procedural problem that there is no unanimity either way and there has been a lot of edit warring including the repeated uploading and deletion of files. See here for AN's consensus about this procedural problem. Readers who want images of Breivik will have no trouble at all to find them elsewhere, so there is no need for haste. Hans Adler 20:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) This section changes nothing anyway. It's just another bit of polemic by an editor whose purpose in editing here is ideological warfare rather than the improvement of the encyclopedia. I'd recommend that editors ignore it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I really object to the claim that "they deleted the Commons page out of some kind of copyright paranoia" - who is "they"? It was deleted by the decision of us, following discussion and consensus. I accept that that discussion has some inappropriate, invalid and even fatuous arguments - on both sides; but I hope you will also accept that there were also reasoned views expressed, based on policy. I concur absolutely with Hans Adler - no need for haste. I assure you that my personal views on this are not guided from some moralistic stance to avoid promoting the person; it's purely about the copyright status and encyclopaedic value.  Chzz  ►  21:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I don´t really see that it is in anyway conducive to express disgust at the normal editorial process. I find it strange that some editors here seem to think that it is wikipedia's job not just to protect Breivik's freedom of expression, but also that we have a moral obligation to convey his preferred selfimage to our readers - but I am sure there are som non-disgusting reasons for their having this view. I maintain that we are an encyclopedia - not a collection of all information. Whether or not an image is to be used here depends on its encyclopedic value, its copyright status and a consensus of editors that the image improves the article and the encyclopedia. I don't see how insulting other editors or throwing around acusations gets us loser to any of those requirements.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC) ↑ Fuck yeah.  Chzz  ►  00:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Me too. Someone should hat this, I think. causa sui (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I also would be disgusted that anyone thought we should be doing what Brevik wanted. So... who said this? Cause I don't see anyone suggesting such things. Egg Centric 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

New detention decision from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court) on August 19

Saying, if I understood the newsreel correctly, that Breivik will be held in solitary confinement for another four weeks.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You did. See "Breivik can be held in isolation for four more weeks, Norway court rules". The Guardian. 19 August 2011.

--Javaweb (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

"High on drugs and listening to music, he tracks victims along the southern shore" .?.

Has anyone heard of A.D.Breivik being "high on drugs" ? His picture being driven away certainly looks like he is.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021103/Norway-shooting-victims-Pictures-Utoya-island-24-hours-rampage.html
This article has a map of his route on the island I haven't seen before. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It must not be true. After these many days, something would have shown up in a Google-search. The caption on part of his island trek must not be true. Still, I think the picture of him being hauled off, looking stoned, would be a good replacement picture if one is even desired. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Chill Section

Off-topic; try WP:TEA  Chzz  ►  00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an experiment, no idea if unprecedented or not, but I'm gonna try it. I respect ALL these users and I typed them out: Chzz thumperward Hans Adler Wnt Polozooza Causa sui ErrantX Cerejota Hoary Maunus Johnuniq PaulWicks Martin Hogbin TMck JN466 Teapeat Heck, even Jimbo Wales Why do I respect them? They're all here to help. This place is getting heated guys (and I think we're all guys - not sure what that means - guess it's the guns!) and I think that some good can come of not letting this get too serious. So I thought I'd mention how much I respect you all, and invite you all to do the same to one another, as you feel comfortable doing. Egg Centric 21:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Very well then, let us chill. To help with that, I'll leave the page alone for a week or so. Polozooza (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks also for cooling things. I had a thought which I hope is not in any way inflammatory, which I have added below. If you think it is unhelpful, I will remove it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A thought

Is there any sense in trying to get an expert opinion on the likely impact of the disputed image. We are all currently arguing from a position of ignorance. Is there a association of forensic psychologist or the like that we could approach? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think the onus is on those editors who wish for the image to be removed on psychological grounds to point to something more concrete than a Wikipedia article and a YouTube video if they want their position to be considered valid. I don't think there's any such pressure on those who believe otherwise, what with proving a negative being somewhat more difficult. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a suggestion the other day that the view of Martin et al was based on real science, in published papers. Am I given to understand this was not actually the case? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This image has already been widely published. Even if there would be an impact, the in-/exclusion of this image on Wikipedia would contribute nothing of significance to that. —Ruud 11:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I was envisaging that we would ask the question specifically about the impact of including the image in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"We are all currently arguing from a position of ignorance." Facepalm Martin, you yourself are among those who've been making some very serious claims. So, I second Errant's question: are we to understand that these claims are being made "from a position of ignorance," i.e. without a real scientific basis? No offense intended whatsoever, but how is it productive for you, I, or Randy in Boise to argue a point for several days, and when a compromise is reached (which doesn't necessarily satisfy your argument), claim that we're all ignorant on the matter and need to speak to an expert? Again, I'm not trying to offend, but don't you think this has been just a little bit of a waste of time? Swarm ^{u | t} 04:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironic

If he would have whacked himself off his picture would be eligible for inclusion under a fair use rationale. E.g. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is valid under fair-use rationale because it illustrates not just the subject, but the subject in a context that cannot possibly be repeated. Images of people have two roles, one is to simply illustrate them, another is to illustrate them in a context. The difference is not trivial, but there is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that goes on. For example, this is the basis for not including the image in the infobox. --Cerejota (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Whacking himself off wouldn't really be notable. ;) Wnt (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the mental image. DX --Swarm ^{u | t} 07:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't valid under NFCC. See my comments about that above [1].  Chzz  ►  01:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I understand the point. I just don't agree: fair-use is functionally equivalent as "free" as in freedom. I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot by having a definition of fair-use that errs on the conservative, reflects the lack of resources that we once had (today, world-class lawyers would be fighting to defend us pro-bono if we get sued for infringement), and not improving the encyclopedia by not allowing illustrative images to be used. Fair-use is a principle used by the largest media organizations of the world. The problem becomes more complex with the uneven application of the rules that happens inevitably because of the need for consensus. I wish we did have a bright-line policy, but we can't because we can't reach consensus. Oh the wonders of wikipedia!

But lets face it, this is one of the eternal battles here, and while do to the profile of this article, it becomes a "test case", I seriously think such systemic arguments belong in a systemic forum, and not here. For example, I am inclined to think that all BLPs (and possibly all contemporary news events) should be moved to an entirely separate project than Wikipedia, sort of a half-way point between Wikinews and this encyclopedia, with entirely different rules regarding everything, harsher is some respects (with more bright line content rules than what we have), and looser in other respects (such as fair-use). Oh, but what a dream... :) --Cerejota (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with a policy, you're quite welcome to discuss it - just, not here; you could try one of the areas of WP:PUMP. However, the policy as it stands is clear.

You might find WP:VEGAN interesting too, in regard to NFC. But, this really is a debate for another place.  Chzz  ►  03:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Right wing vandalism?

According to this guy, Breivik is not right-wing. So he removed the word right-wing from the article. In my personal opinion, this is vandalism and POV-pushing by an IP on a controversial subject, especially considering the fact this was done without any discussion or a proper explanation. I think it should be reverted but I have already made clear I myself do not intend to edit the article anymore, for obvious reasons. ;) Polozooza (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: User also removed source(s). Polozooza (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Swarm ^{u | t} 11:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik in military uniform.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik in military uniform.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders Breivik image

Hi all,

I'm looking for additional eye balls / brain cells on the following image of the Norway massacre perpetrator Anders Breivik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_with_gun_(self_portrait).jpg

Based on what I have heard from psychologists (I'm sorry, I don't have sources handy EDIT: video segment featuring a forensic psychiatrist, Park Dietz, who has consulted to a number of investigations including serial killers and mass murderers. PLEASE spend two minutes to watch the video in considering the use of this particular image: [2]), images in the media "glorifying" perpetrators of mass murderers, by for example, showing them dressed in black, posing with weapons, or photographs of them using custom weapons, were all potential triggers that increase the likelihood of copycats.

I posted a brief summary of this in the discussion page but interested in other views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Picture

Clearly copyright etc. are important and many WP pages are enhanced by images but I think in this case we should think very carefully.--PaulWicks (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We still do not have a better image. It has been asked before if someone would be able to upload a less-flattering image of Mr. Breivik. An image like the one on which he is captured, for example, or sitting in the police car. Those pictures show an entirely different Breivik; a pathetic figure, a broken man, a psychopath. Not a figure from a movie or a video game, like the current picture. Fact of the matter is: there is no alternative image right now. For the time being, this image has to do. What we should be doing instead of just removing the only available picture is start looking for a free image to upload which shows us a different Breivik - one closer to reality. In the meantime, this is all we have. Polozooza (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Did we ever settle the issue of how he licensed these images? If they are public domain, then we could crop the image to show only his face. causa sui (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If he has not explicitly released them as public domain, the he retains ownership, and thus copyright. However, as he is a public figure (and fully intended to become one), the image could be used under the "fair use" conditions (that would be the situation in Germany). Altering the image in a way that would be disfavorable to him would not be fair use, but cropping the picture would probably be ok, as long as the remaining image does show his face, not his ass. I'm no expert in copyright law, though.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Showing only his face sounds perfectly fine with me. Nothing "heroic" or "glorying" about some guy's face by itself. In the mean time, the current image is all we have. Another option would be this one... not very flattering, is it? How are the rights on that image? Polozooza (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Remove I think the current image is unsuitable and should be remove regardless of the availability of another. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove The posed costumed self-portraits the killer composed are not WP:NPOV, especially when there are no realistic pictures of him in the article. The picture editor Polozooza linked to is reasonable. The images in the article do not represent his life and actions. He did not serve in the military so why is there an image with him in a pretend uniform? He was not a Navy seal. He was not notable as a freemason. He was not a famous actor we are showing in costume. He is notable for killing twice as many Norwegians as the 34 murdered in all of Norway in 2010. This picture, with him reconstructing the scene for the police, wearing a police-supplied bullet-proof vest to protect him from potential harm from the public], is realistic.

There are also no article pictures showing the outcome of his massacre such as this, this, and this.

As far as copyright is concerned, there are pictures such as the Oswald assassination where wikipedia can use them. Does anyone have any ideas on how to find out what can/cannot be used? --Javaweb (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• FWIW, that he is notable for killing people does not mean we ought to remove images illustrating legitimate biographical information in the article just because they are unrelated to the reason the subject is notable. For instance, J.R.R. Tolkien is notable for writing The Lord of the Rings, but we still have images of him in his military uniform, an image of the building where he went to school, his house, his wife, his headstone... while I understand the temptation to make the article into an attack page, we have a non-negotiable editorial obligation to represent the subject factually, neutrally, and comprehensively. causa sui (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, I have found the original reference I was looking for. It was a video segment featuring a forensic psychiatrist, Park Dietz, who has consulted to a number of investigations including serial killers and mass murderers. PLEASE spend two minutes to watch the video in considering the use of this particular image: [3]. For clarity, I agree there should be *a* photo to enhance the article, but that *this* image of him as black-clad anti-hero with a a custom machine gun is not suitable. --PaulWicks (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Remove. I assume there was some good reason why the portraits of his face that are all over the internet, and used to be in the infobox for this article, were removed. On that assumption, I agree that the image we now have is unacceptable and that it would be better to have no image at all than just this one. causa sui (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep but move out of infobox Blooming heck, what is this madness? This image is all over the place, of course it can be kept on Wikipedia. I don't see anyone arguing the article should be removed for glorifying him (and there is a very real pheonomena of copycat killings). In any case, there will soon be an option to filter images added to Wikipedia - perhaps we can have a "dribbling loony" filter. Egg Centric 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed vote to move out of infobox after seeing ErrantX's reasoning. While on principle I am happy with it anywhere in the article it would indeed work better in a different section Egg Centric 17:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Move out of infobox; it is not a great image for an infobox. But will go nicely in the manifesto text option where it is mention and discussed, of course pending conclusion of the discussion on Commons over its license. The concern over inciting further violence is not in line with our policy on neutrality and non-censorship. Especially as there is no obvious substantive reason to believe this might be the case. Trying to incite panic or urgency over the existence of the image in the article, apparently in an attempt to get it removed is very concerning behaviour --Errant ^(chat!) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - absolutely inappropriate in infobox.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? I agree it may not be the best place for it but I can't see why it's absolutely inappropriate. Egg Centric 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but jumping into an active edit war to remove something as it's being discussed in an RfC is low, particularly for someone who's supposed to be above that. Swarm ^{u | t} 17:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep unless a better or a cut down version of the image can be found. Wikipedia is not censored.Teapeat (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove Wikipedia is not Breivik's propaganda central. There are numerous other images that could be used. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Coment. Suggestion: Move the image to where it is discussed in the article as a small thumbnail and either try to find a good replacement for the info-box or wait if the image survives deletion and if so make a crop version to include in the info-box. that in my opinion makes the most sense. This is in part a collection of comments made by other users in several image threats on this discussion page.TMCk (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

yeah, crop it to just show the face. That would work better.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - my opinion is expressed in detail in the below section. In sum, it's absolutely absurd to suggest that removing this image from the article entirely will somehow save lives. We do not censor ourselves out of fear, ever. Agree that it's not infobox material. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - illustrating a subject with the only image available for the purpose is inherently NPOV, and if it weren't WP:IAR tells us to improve the encyclopedia, rules be damned. We need to illustrate this living subject, and we must do it with whatever image we find that lets us do it. --Cerejota (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove Wikipedia should not be used to glorify business tycoons, politicians, or murderers. The issue is not censorship because there is no external authority dictating what has to happen here—the issue is editorial judgment about what is appropriate in an encyclopedia, and using self-prepared fluff is not acceptable. If no suitable image is available, no image should be displayed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Per that argument, what would you consider r.e. the glossy and carefully posed image on Barack Obama, which could readily be argued to be posed to portray him as a statesman, calm, collected etc. and glorifying his position? How much of this is driven by the idea that it glorifies his goals, which we disagree with - rather than purely a matter of glorification? Is the Obama image "OK" because it is not a guy with a gun who killed a load of people? Second question; what do you think to the idea of placing it in the article next to critical commentary - does it have reader interest? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove from the infobox. The image may be usable in some other portion of the article, but the infobox should contain a head-and-shoulders portrait of the sort usually found in biographical articles. --Carnildo (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• While the argument that this will incite crime is ludicrous, such an unusual image is a rather poor depiction of the subject. Contrary to some of the comments above, we certainly do not need to use a poor images if it is the only one available, and we regularly remove inappropriate ones: images of sportspersons taken in bars with camera phones, for example. If the only free image available of Breivik had him wearing a bunny suit, or rock climbing, or any number of other unusual poses / situations, we'd be right to remove it at our discretion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove from article, per Maunus, Johnuniq and others. --JN466 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove and keep removed, per pretty much everyone. This image was made by a mass murderer to glorify himself as some kind of soldier.Griswaldo (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep but move outside infobox. It is already out of Pandora's box (all over the internet) and if it were going to influence someone, it would not matter if it were here or not. I don't recall this self-glorifying image inspiring others to commit crimes. Brevik's self-portrait is not flattering despite what he envisioned his personal image to be. Looks pretty goofy to me.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Remove from infobox as an obviously inappropriate and self-glorifying image. No image at all would be better than using that picture. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Zero g (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep, move out of infobox This image has been widely republished in the media (published full-page and on the frontpage of several newspapers) and, given the context in which it was produced, I would argue this image has encyclopedic value and should be included in the article even if a more appropriate image was available for the lead section. I would be very surprised if there would not be any reliable sources discussing this particular photo. This would make any "NPOV" concerns moot, which could already be alleviated by a suitably phrased image caption. I would suggest, however, to include the image lower down in the article, together with text discussing or related to the image, instead of in the infobox. —Ruud 07:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Rather use this image. It is better, as it shows Breivik without his weapon, which might be seen to be offensive by survivors and relatives. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Image removed

I have removed the image while we discuss this. I there is the slightest possibility that the image might encourage other mass murderers we should not show it. Arguments about 'illustrating legitimate biographical information' are fine but we must find a way of doing this that will not promote further atrocities. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that your objections are in good faith, but edit warring is not acceptable. That goes for Polozooza (talk · contribs), too. Please find consensus on the talk page before making controversial edits. causa sui (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The original version was the one with the image. Let us keep that version intact untill after a consensus is reached in this discussion. I myself will refrain from editing the Breivik page in the meantime, and I hope for Mr. Hogbin to do the same. Let us not let this get out of hand. Polozooza (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is far more serious than an edit war. This image could incite others to copy Breivik. As an admin, causa sui, you should take action now. The page is going to be read by many people as the event is still in the news. Glorifying a killer in unacceptable and should be stopped now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Being a sysop confers on me no special editorial authority. I only have a few extra technical abilities that allow me to prevent disruption and damage to the project. I understand your frustration, but we can't short-circuit dispute resolution. causa sui (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Eeeek, no. We cannot, and must not, ever make value judgements on images. You will find people arguing that images of nude people encourages promiscuity, which is a terrible problem in their view. Does that lead us to approve of removing images? Lets have policy based arguments, please! We should, of course, consider the effect of any image or content - but without substantive evidence of likely harm it is the worst form of censorship. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Very much to the contrary. We can and must exercise valid thoughtful editorial judgment, which always has a moral dimension. We are not mechanistic cataloging bots - we are editors, writing an encyclopedia. I have no strong view on this particular image, but I want to strongly reject arguments that seek to shortcut a conversation about the moral implications of everything that we do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You've misread the critical part of my point - and I think you are being unfair as well. We should, definitely, consider the moral implications of what we display - but in this case the moral objection has no factual foundation, and appears to be an emotional reaction to a common fear (I am open to being wrong about this, but nothing substantive has been advanced to prove the point as yet). :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Trout Martin and restore the image. A) We do not make decisions like this based on what someone's "heard" but has "no sources handy". B) RfCs run for a month. We don't act on them before that, especially when the action makes it more difficult for people to comment. C) Wikipedia is not censored, and this is simply a blatant act of censorship. D) This is a perfect example of why 3RR is a problem when admins can't apply common sense to individual situations.

Keep the article as was with the image so the community can make a decision, but don't unilaterally censor things based on your own whims. Swarm ^{u | t} 17:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the rfc should pan out first. The argument of Hodgekins that things must be removed if there is " slightest possibility that the image might encourage other mass murderers" is not a policy and would be very, very impracticle (and would require deletion of mass murder and bomb). L.tak (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, re: "heard" and "sources handy" I did add in the original source in the details above. --PaulWicks (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to explain or revise your point D? causa sui (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• As of know I didn't see any policy based argument for the removal of the image. Editors opinion (and that includes the opinion of the guy in the youtube video) are no arguments to remove unless there is a wide agreement (consensus) to purch the picture.TMCk (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of a picture is an editorial decision, which means that editors opinions is the only way to decide whether to include or exclude a certain picture. We cannot include every picture that is not explicitly disallowed by policy in every article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Maunus is right about this. We do not have to have arguments rooted in policy to exercise our editorial judgment. causa sui (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much what I have said in my post above? I thought that I clearly said that if there is no policy then consensus is the next way to go.TMCk (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you all here that WP is not censored. I have argued on other pages for keeping images that others find offensive but we are not talking about causing offence or breaching some social taboo here we are talking about the possibility of mass murder; it is rather different. I hardly think we need a WP policy that we should not do anything that might encourage mass murder. Maybe the guy in the video is wrong and these images will not encourage copycats but should we take the chance? There are strong restrictions on BLPs in general because they affect real people and this is a similar case. We must not get tied up in WP policy when there is the possibility of causing real harm.

There are cases where a picture must be shown, to get the truth out there, but this is not one of them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a reaction based in fear, not in fact or reasonable statistical likelihood. we are not talking about causing offence or breaching some social taboo here we are talking about the possibility of mass murder; many mass murders are supposedly inspired by violent video games, perhaps we should remove screenshots of them? We have several images of burning buildings - that could inspire arsonists. What about the recent riots - should we avoid images of them to avoid inciting further riots? Whilst your reaction is somewhat understandable in the current climate, it's not a consideration we need to be worried about. You talk about probability; the probability here is negligible (unless you have clear proof otherwise, which I would be happy to see) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the main reason that we should include the image, if I may ask?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking personally; I'm not too worried. I took a look through the sources and there is some degree of critical commentary of this particular image. It also demonstrates how he views himself (which I think is of interest to readers). But as you'll see above, it's not at all good for the infobox of a BLP --Errant ^(chat!) 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have some additional points about this.

1. As others have mentioned, efforts by Martin and others to incite moral panic as an instrument to skip the discussion and get their way outside of ordinary dispute resolution processes are not welcome, and actually harm the cause by provoking a backlash. Histrionics are never helpful, even where we think they are accurate.
2. Speaking to everyone, the edit warring over this is absolutely unacceptable. I've requested full protection at WP:RFPP. It is disappointing that protection is required while an RFC is ongoing.
3. I think that Martin's argument comparing this situation to the spirit of the BLP policy is relevant and important. The BLP policy was created when we realized the extent to which content on Wikipedia has a tremendous impact on the lives of real people. Accordingly, we do not censor biographies of living people, but we do selectively enforce our core content policies by subjecting BLP content to an unusually high level of scrutiny.
4. I think the spirit motivating the policy obtains here: article content on Wikipedia has immense worldwide social and cultural impact and we have an ethical and editorial obligation to take that possible impact into account when drafting articles. With that in mind, we can see that there is no pressing encyclopedic necessity to use that image in the infobox, rather than any other fair use image. But there is a good reason to consider removing it from the infobox: the potential harm it may cause in the real world by associating mass murder with paramilitary anti-heroism.
5. It seems that the objections to removing the image are based more in rejecting a general policy implication, as if the issue is about the principle of the thing. Objections of this kind should not be persuasive. We are not setting precedent here: we are considering circumstances specific to the case and making a collective editorial judgment based on what we think is the best thing for this article.

causa sui (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks causa sui for calming the tone a bit. I do not think inciting moral panic is a fair description of my action or intentions. There is a possibility that this picture might incite others to mass murder. There is a logic to taking it down while we discuss the subject. If it is agreed that the picture is harmless, it can be put back and we have lost very little, if on the other hand the picture did play some small part in provoking a copycat incident then it would be too late to remove it.

Regarding edit warring, if I believe a picture might result in people being killed I am going to remove it, regardless of anything else.

The word censor is not particularly helpful here. We try to make responsible editorial decisions in BLPs where we balance the potential harm that a statement or picture may cause with the right of the public to know and the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform. We adopt higher standards than tabloid newspapers partly because of the permanence of WP. Although this is not strictly a BLP issue it is similar in that we must balance similar issues.

If we must have a WP policy to defend the removal of the image then NPOV would be relevant. The picture portrays Breivik according to an extreme minority POV, the way Breivik sees himself. The rest of the world see him as an evil mass murderer and that is how he should be portrayed here.

I agree that this should not be taken as a precedent for the removal of images from WP on a whim. I think this is an extreme case, where the potential harm is very great but the justification for keeping the picture is small. Let us see what others think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

where the potential harm is very great and on this I most strongly disagree. The underlying assertion in your logical reasoning is highly flawed, so far unsupported with any evidence and, with the best will in the world, a load of rubbish. :) Clearly you believe very passionately though, in this particular case. I'd suggest perhaps stepping back and reconsidering the scope of what you are proposing, and the likelihood of the effect. The link between heightened aggression and media/tv is still under research, though tentatively positive. But I am not aware of any studies, or known examples, of people being incited by imagery in the form we have here (and, yes, I did go through various journals & articles before making that statement). I think it is an untenable hypothesis that this image incites violence. I made this same argument when we have the Wikileaks issue; if information causes obvious and direct harm then clearly we must avoid it. But we can't speculate on what might happen - we are neither qualified, or able to make a sensible judgement. Although with that said; stuck in the infobox was a bad and non-neutral move --Errant ^(chat!) 22:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I did say potential for harm. I am thinking of the worst case, that is to say a copycat mass killing. Of course this image is not going to make ordinary people go out and shoot people but there is some evidence that mass murderers crave media exposure and glorification. Maybe you are right, maybe I am but do you really want to take the chance? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

but there is some evidence that mass murderers crave media exposure and glorification - perhaps. I am not aware that it has been discovered that they crave glorification specifically, most mass killers of this specific sort are rational enough to know they will be hated. However, they do want the media attention to their cause. If we follow this premise surely the logical conclusion is the remove the article? I am thinking of the worst case; but that's not logical! Considering the worst case is illogical because you can almost always find a horrifying worst case in any scenario. What you do is run a risk assessment of risk likelihood against risk impact. In this case there is simply no evidence that an image of this form, presented in this way, incites violence. but do you really want to take the chance?; yes, and with a clear conscience. We do not, and should not, live in fear. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they are pointing to concrete social science research suggesting that images like this actually do encourage copycats. Is this a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or can you respond directly to it? causa sui (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuing to assert that including this image in an encyclopedia article might cause a 'mass killing' is excessively dramatic fearmongering. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that an image that's already all over the internet and television should not be included in our article at all. Depictions of Muhammad can incite violence or killings, but we don't hesitate to post them. Why? Because we don't censor ourselves out of fear-driven or moral-driven desires. Yes, there is evidence that glorification of criminals in the media may cause copycat crimes. However, that's not Wikipedia's fault. Removing the image is not going to save lives, and including the image is not going to doom innocent people, and the repeated suggestions that that is the case is simply ridiculous. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) If we were confident (as we could be of anything in social science) that the image encourages copycats, would that change your opinion? (2) If "yes", do you acknowledge that the initiators of this RFC are not citing generic fear mongering, but actual hard social science that they think demonstrates that this image actually does encourage copycats? causa sui (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

With the best will in the world; this is my field of study. I teach a seminar class that partially covers the instigation of mass murder. So, yes, I find the assertions suspect without those studies being presented. It is worth noting here that you're going to have a tough time finding a study that supports the idea that copycat killers might be incited by an image of this form, in this place. Sure; there are legitimate studies examining the link between violence on TV and in the media which shows a correlation of sorts to mass murder (with some careful caveats). But if you examine the studies in depth, and their conclusions, I don't think they would support the specific assertion being made here (that a posed/self-proclaimed image in an article specifically incites violence). If such a study exists, I would be happy to read it and reform my view. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So that you understand the motivation for my questioning, I don't particularly intend to do research on this; mainly, I want to have an honest discussion about everyone's views, and to ensure that we are responding to the arguments our fellow editors are actually making, and not straw men. Maybe they're doing science badly: maybe they are relying too heavily on one work; maybe they are misunderstanding a work that seems to apply but doesn't apply; maybe they are ignorant of a larger body of work that discredits the work they are citing; maybe they are ignorant of flaws in the methods used; maybe some combination of the above. But then by pointing that out, we would be getting somewhere instead of talking past each other. :) I think it's fair to say that the burden of proof is not on you, and that they ought to directly cite something that we can then take a look at.

For my part, all I have is my own reading of analysis of narcissistic personality disorder that people with malignant narcissism often seek condemnation and infamy as a substitute for fame and adulation when they realize they cannot achieve the latter. That makes it plausible to me that images like that in the infobox, by characterizing a mass murderer as an anti-hero, could lead to copycats. But as you seem to understand, plausibility is a very long distance from peer-reviewed publication. Unless secondary sources evaluating the state of existing literature can be found, the best compromise may be to thumbnail the image somewhere lower in the article. causa sui (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As the originator of this RFC I would like to clarify my original intent. On arriving (randomly) at this page, I was surprised to see that the lead picture was what it was. As a long-time WP editor it struck me as out of character with other pages I had seen. If we were to go through all the criminals' pages on WP I would be surprised if there were many examples where the subject's photograph was one that essentially made them look like a special forces guy. Are there any examples of criminals or terrorists posing with weapons that we use on a WP page at all, much less the infobox? As a psychologist, the video commentary from an experienced forensic psychiatrist [4] resonated with me, and prompted my action. No, there are not going to be any studies of mass murderers that rise to an acceptable level of evidence - the opinions of any one "expert" do not necessarily trump those of anyone else on WP but I think they should at least give pause. Regardless of my own work in psychology, I have never helped the police investigate (or prevent) mass killings. This chap has. Therefore I think it is at least worth taking his viewpoint seriously, rather than dismissing it as just one person's view. My hope in prompting this RFC was that somebody would just file an image request in the appropriate board and we could find a better, creative commons licensed image that would be less controversial / inflammatory. The revert war is regrettable and I think, as these things often do, this has got too emotional. My suggestion would be that someone better at copyright than me a.) sources a better image for the infobox, b.) uses another one of the images released in the same batch as the gun photo (uniforms?) further down the page. The gun/swimsuit thing just isn't necessary; it doesn't add one thing to an encyclopedic article. Perhaps if I'd stated my position more clearly at the outset it would have been helpful, my apologies if that was the case. --PaulWicks (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) The RfC's purpose isn't unreasonable. The problem is simply that it's caused questionable actions such as edit warring and unilaterally removing the image. I've requested that an uninvolved admin take a look and consider restoring the image in some way, solely because removing the image might impede the RfC. Swarm ^{u | t} 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as solutions go, is it an acceptable compromise to thumbnail the image somewhere else in the article, maybe in a section discussing his publications? causa sui (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a sample revision as an example. [5] Are there any objections to something like this? causa sui (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In what other bio would we feature a promotional self-portrait? Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In any case I think that there are good reasons, some might call them moral (why is moral all of a sudden a bad word here) or political others simply common sense, not to feature the picture that Breivik chose to present himself to the world. The copycat argument is not convincing in and of it self - but seriously why would we includethe image? I just see no reason that wikipedia should include it at all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WHAT PART OF WP:NOTCENSORED IS MISUNDERSTOOD HERE? We can delete as copyvio or whatever, but the moral argument is completely, absolutely, beyond the pale a violation of, a rape, of everything this project is about. If its legal, and it illustrates the subject, there is no reason not to include. --Cerejota (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Louder isn't clearer. causa sui (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Somebody writes above: Blooming heck, what is this madness? This image is all over the place, of course it can be kept on Wikipedia. The premises surprise me. I've read about Breivik at guardian.co.uk and to a lesser extent nytimes.com but have never seen this image there, or indeed any image of Breivik before his arrest. Have I missed something? If I haven't missed anything, then it's not true to say that the image is all over the place. Now that I do see photographs of him, I see that he appears to be a normal enough, youngish "white", which I'd already known, and that he likes dressing up and holding toys. (Maybe it's not a toy but instead real; I wouldn't know. And I don't know what it either is or imitates.) Now, the Tolkien article indeed has a photograph of Tolkien in military gear even though shooting people isn't something for which Tolkien is famous. But I'd guess (without bothering to go through talk page discussion) that this is just a conveniently accessible head'n'shoulders photo of Tolkien. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it from a later and different era, but he seems to have a faraway, dreamy look -- whether thinking of Blighty, or Death, or Poetry, I know not. By contrast, Breivik just looks as if he's doing "cosplay" for some minor character in Dr No. -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • @Hoary The image was continuously looped on most TV news shows and shown in many articles online following the attack. He has several strange "cosplay" pictures, but I would definitely say this one especially is everywhere. Heck, if you Google his name this comes up multiple times.
  • @causa IDIDNTHEARTHAT implies that the argument has been successfully addressed, and I would respectfully disagree with that. Swarm ^{u | t} 04:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • All right, the image is in many places. But the Guardian (for example) manages to inform its readers well enough without it. And since the image is in many places, it could easily be linked to. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the image should be deleted as a clear copyvio (licencing not explicit (COM:PRP)) and fails NFC, rendering this discussion moot; unfortunately, it seems we must have this discussion over 9000 times before that will be accepted; see A B. C D E F G H I J K etc.  Chzz  ►  04:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Re. the above, perhaps more relevent is WP:SHOUT and Wikipedia:Shouting things loudly does not make them true. Anyone mentioned Hitler yet?  Chzz  ►  04:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• • As any discussion on Wikipedia progresses, the probability of someone using bold text around WP:NOTCENSORED approaches 1. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • As any discussion on Wikipedia progresses, the probability of someone making a lame version of Godwin's Law approaches 1, and the appropriateness of the version approaches 0.--Cerejota (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Chzz, I think there is reasonable argument to delete these images as copy-vio - even if I disagree with the argument. But saying they do not meet NFC, when they clearly illustrate a historically significant event for which no free alternative exists (unless you have a time machine and can go to how he looked shortly before and in preparation to the attacks), is cynical.--Cerejota (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, I assure you it is not cynical at all. I have considerable experience in NFC discussions, and based upon that, I assure you that it is extraordinarily unusual for an image of a living person to be accepted - because, it's always deemed possible to obtain other images which suit the same purpose; the policy at WP:NFC#UUI even specifically lists Pictures of people still alive in the examples of unacceptable use - yes, there are exceptions, but it really is very unusual. There is nothing historically significant about this, specific picture - it does not portray a unique moment in history. When we talk of Images with iconic status or historical importance, we're talking about thinks like Tank man or Phan Thi Kim Phuc - where the image itself has been written about extensively.

Now, please understand - I'm not stating my own opinion here (as to whether or not we should host the image) - I am merely explaining policy, and the results I've seen in previous discussions.

If you want, you can find examples that contradict it - such as, pictures of Amy Pond - but, I suggest that that's just because they haven't come up for detailed discussion yet (there was a discussion about that one, but not much).

Furthermore, please consider the tens of thousands of articles about living people which do not have an image, but we could easily obtain one from facebook or similar pages. Why don't we? Because of our goal in providing free content.  Chzz  ►  21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Copyright Concerns

It explicitly states in his manifesto (copy currently avaliable here) that

This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this
compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and
contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this
reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the
author(s) are credited when the material is used.
As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the
European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations.

I personally interpret that as releasing the images (as he holds the copyright of them, unlike other parts of the document) therin to the public domain and thus permitting this pic to be used on Wikipedia. Egg Centric 11:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How fortunate we are to have a qualified IP lawyer in our midst. I'm glad that you've settled that a pseudo-public-domain release (for "all Europeans across the European world") in the documents of a serial killer is an adequate waiver for the Wikimedia Foundation. I look forward to this material being hosted where it belongs, on Wikimedia Commons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you call him "Hitler" and get it over with?--Cerejota (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but WP:HORSEMEAT.--Cerejota (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The image is on commons, and its status is being discussed there. I suggest we leave that discussion somewhat to one side of this one - I agree (and I suspect others do as well) that the copyright issue is unresolved. I think we should treat the image as potentially acceptable from a copyright perspective, pending conclusion of the Commons discussion, and focus instead on the editorial issues. If the image is decided as unlicensed for Commons then it would be removed anyway. If it is not, those arguments have no basis and we still end up with an editorial issue to resolve :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, well he is welcome to sue me if the advice is wrong Egg Centric 12:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

I think the most critical point of contention is that infobox images should uniquely illustrate the subject, whereas images elsewhere in the article may illustrate other things that are relevant to the subject.

As such, having the image in the infobox is inappropriate since using a doctored PR image that Breivik released to glorify himself and reinforce his self-image as a paramilitary anti-hero is unencyclopedic, as it does not neutrally and factually illustrate the subject. Additionally, some people have suggested that it may encourage copy-cats, though we haven't yet verified that scientifically.

However, having the image elsewhere in the article may be a legitimate illustration of his efforts to control his public image through the photos. That should address objections that we not censor Wikipedia or remove content based on hypothetical possible harm.

For demonstration, I made a test revision here, thumbnailing the image in the section about the manifesto.

Some folks might think it's unnecessary to compromise like this because they believe strongly in the rightness of their opinions about what ought to be done. I have to stress that your conviction alone does not remove the existence of this complex content dispute, and in fact leads us further away from a resolution. But a willingness to compromise in the interests of writing the best article possible may remove obstacles to a resolution.

Is this workable? causa sui (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This has (per my original !vote) been my preference all along, and you put the proposition well. As you say - there is no good argument for using this in the infobox. I think in the article is fine --Errant ^(chat!) 20:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I proposed in one of my comments so yes, this is the way to go in a much needed compromise.TMCk (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's such a good idea you've gotten a barnstar Egg Centric 21:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The arguments that removing the image is "censorship" are as ludicrous as the arguments that the picture encourages copycat attacks. There is no need for a "compromise" on behalf of that point of view. Nevertheless, you make a good argument regarding the manifesto section. I wouldn't be opposed to inclusion of the image or a modified version thereof on those grounds. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

They're not remotely ludicrous. It seems most of the arguments about removal were not about copyright or infobox technicalities, but about the horrific acts that may be caused by the image remaining. Sorry, but the latter is classic censorship Egg Centric 21:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No classic censorship is a powerful institution denying people access to useful information that is in their interest because it is against its own. I don't really see how that gets close to describe a situation where a group of people are democratically discussing whether a particular image should be included in an encyclopedic article - or even the fact that the image is exluded as a default setting while the discussion is pending.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That "my way or the highway" approach is not really helping in finding a compromise to reach a consensus that every one can live with. And BTW, as I pointed out further above, if the image is kept on commons we can crop it to a head picture only for the info-box so it doesn't stay empty. Again, not willing to compromise even 1 inch is not helpful.TMCk (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if it's in the infobox or not. I don't think there is anything wrong with using any picture, however biased, if that is what is available to us. We can of course credit the picture to Breivik's manifesto, preferably with a direct link to the primary source. Wnt (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we ought to avoid rehashing these arguments. We've been around the merry-go-round many times and everyone has had ample opportunity to state their respective cases. If opinions haven't changed by now, they won't just because we argue our opinions yet again. Chris Cunningham's tone is not very friendly, but he seems to be yielding to compromise. causa sui (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I support it. In the meantime, I suggest we go looking for a proper image to include in the infobox. There has to be one. For now, this compromise is the best option we have. Polozooza (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There's probably one of him on the island, on a chain like the dog he is. Just need to find it. Egg Centric 22:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How about the one of Breivik in the police car? I suggested it earlier, what are the rights on that one? If anything, it is not "glorifying" this guy. Polozooza (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the one in the police car as a NFC, but good luck with not having it deleted, evne if as an illustration of his arrested there is no possibility of finding a free alternative as it is a past event. .--Cerejota (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't care where images are placed. I want to illustrate the subject, which is what makes a good article around this here 'cyclopedia. How we illustrate it, I really don't care, but illustrate we must. If we do not illustrate, that's when it becomes self-censorship: we are consciously withdrawing encyclopedic information from our readers, making the choice for them, because we do not like the implication of what this information can do (regardless of the merits or demerits of that basis). We have a basic diagram of how to build a nuclear bomb, having a picture or two of some nutjob which will indeed go down in history as a very notable person should be a no-brainer. Man I wish we had the filters already in place so that this would be moot. --Cerejota (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I left some comments on the talk pages of people who participated in the RFC above. Perhaps we should wait a bit more for more of them to weigh in, but consensus seems to be forming around moving the image out of the infobox and into the section on the manifesto. At some point it will be time to pull the trigger. causa sui (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If and when a picture appears by his manifesto, I think it should be the one of him in the car being hauled off—not the glamor-picture he hoped for. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Support this compromise proposal. It's just a common sense move, IMO. Swarm ^{u | t} 05:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've amended my keep !vote above to accept this compromise. It doesn't matter to me whether it is in the box or not.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt to navigate a compromise in a heated discussion. My first preference would be that if we're going to use pictures from his manifesto that we use one of the ones of him in the ?knights templar? get-up. Presumably the rights on that are the same as the gun/wetsuit image. I think the arguments for showing that image (or all 3? there was another uniform getup too) are just as valid and perhaps even having multiple images to illustrate that these were propaganda photos, not representative portraits, will help be more clearly illustrative to readers. If we crop the face that would be more appropriate for the infobox, assuming we can't use another image. Failing all those, this suggestion is better than what we originally had (gun/wetsuit in the infobox). Thanks all for a vigorous but mostly respectful debate. --PaulWicks (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah NFC of the arrest picture no problem if its to illustrate the subject.--Cerejota (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Manifesto section

I am not going to edit war this one but I strongly object to the current manifesto section, including the use of the previously disputed image. There is no consensus to keep the image at all. The results of the earlier poll were that roughly equal numbers (depending on how you count them) came down in favour of removing the image completely versus moving it out of the infobox.

I am strongly against censorship but we must bear in min the purpose of WP and the possible harm that any action we take might cause. As Jimbo Wales says above:

We can and must exercise valid thoughtful editorial judgment, which always has a moral dimension. We are not mechanistic cataloging bots - we are editors, writing an encyclopedia.

In dicussing why this is different from censorship I thing we need to consider the following factors:

The degree of potential harm

I cannot see how this can be disputed. Killing of tens of innocent civilians is in my book a very high degree of harm.

The universality of that harm

Some harm that we might do only exists from a specific POV. The possibility that we might encourage some particular social or sexual practice or attitude, or that we might insult some specific deity might be regarded a very serious harm by some groups but as positively beneficial by others.

The potential harm that might be done by encouraging others to follow Breivik is without doubt accepted by the vast majority of people. Even many hard core terrorist groups would find this kind of action unacceptable.

The likelihood that a given action on WP will cause that harm

This is where the great unknown lies. There is certainly some evidence, in the form of a video of an expert on what appears to be a respectable BBC current affairs programme saying that glorifying and publicising this kind of activity provokes some susceptible others to do the same thing.

What is the chance that this manifesto section could play a significant role in provoking a similar attack. I am quite open about my answer I do not know, but I am equally sure that no one else here does either. I wonder what level of risk others would find acceptable here? If there was, say a 1 on 1,000 chance that that what we write could cause a similar attack, would that be OK?

Existing WP policy

We already have policy that significantly restricts what we can write and show here in the form of BLP policy. This does not directly apply here but it serves to show that that it is accepted that although WP is not censored, we must show a degree of social responsibility in our actions.

This quote from BLP policy shows our responsibilities (my bold):

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment .

Although this refers to harm the subjects of BLPs I see no reason why we should not extend it to the public at large. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You're making a claim, and an extraordinary one at that. As such, the burden of proof is on yourself, i.e., you need to back up your claim. You've failed to provide any evidence to support your claim. Repeating and explaining your claim over and over is not how you meet a burden of proof. Saying, "but what if there's a possibility my claim is true?" Is not how you meet a burden of proof either. We understand your claim, but have no reason to believe it's accurate. Unless you can change that, I would strongly advise you to drop the stick. I'm the first person to support debate, but when it gets excessive, it can start to become disruptive (and I invoke that term lightly and in good faith). Please consider introducing evidence to back yourself up before further pushing this issue. Thanks, Swarm ^{u | t} 10:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no burden of proof. We have exactly the same situation regarding BLP policy. There is no requirement to prove that a statement or image will cause harm. We are obliged to consider the 'possibility of harm to living subjects'. What level of risk would you consider acceptable in this case. 1 in 1,000, 1 in 10,000? Your argument seems to be that because the level of risk is unknown we should take it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't reveal someone's personal information like their home address. You don't include tabloid gossip that may or may not be true. Those things can cause harm. That doesn't mean any claim whatsoever of a "possibility of harm" is, by default, supported by BLP policy. This is a seemingly fringe argument connecting this image to a vague and remote possibility of harm, with no known scientific basis whatsoever. And yes, Martin, to quote our own article: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." I'm not saying "we don't know the risks," I'm saying, "there's no evidence of any risk." Swarm ^{u | t} 10:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that neither of us knows the possibility that this section could cause harm. There is some evidence that it might, you have not presented any at all that it does not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a valid argument.[6] Burden of proof still applies. Please provide evidence to support your argument. Swarm ^{u | t} 10:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Having carefully examined this argument, which is a valid one, I must say that while persuasive in a moral sense, it is entirely unsupported by policy and this is a novel interpretation. Being a fan of WP:IAR, I don't really care about policies in general, but I am quite a stickler to watch out for rather extreme interpretations. Having said that, I doubt that the harm we do by not proving the vast majority of our readers with free (As in freedom and as in beer) information about this topic far outweighs its potential harm. Consider, for example, the good that revealing the extreme behavior the ideas that Breivik adopted to a wider audience can indeed lead to adherents and defenders, but these would, I would hope, be much less than those who are repulsed into action in the opposite direction. Often in life, we have to make such hard moral choices, choices imposed unto us by the external forces beyond our control.

That reminds me of the old moral question:

There is a baby on the tracks of an incoming trolley. You can save the baby by diverting the trolley, but doing so means it will collide with another trolley, killing at least 50 people. What do you do? Divert the trolley or let the baby be killed?

A very hard choice.

This type of moral conundrum, as Jimbo suggests, should be taken seriously, but even when doing so, the choices presented might still be dark. There is no doubt the world would be a better place without Anders Breivik, but we do not have the luxury of such an hypothetical. We do have the luxury of taking the chance and betting that the out come of our deep coverage of this subject would have a net positive effect, rather than a net negative effect. We can neither hope for an entirely positive outcome, nor fear an entirely negative one.

Our pages are filled with article after article of terrible crimes, terrible wars, ethnic cleansing, hateful ideologies, dictators, criminals, and all kind of nastiness. Sadly, the 2011 Norway attacks is not even in the top 100 of the acts of violence we describe and record. But do so we must, because the positive effect of collecting all of the world's knowledge far outweighs the negative effects of collecting all of the world's knowledge. --Cerejota (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, I do not know what you think I am suggesting but I am not suggesting that we remove all mention of bad things that have happened. neither do I want to remove all images that may be potentially distressing. For example I fully support the graphic images shown in the Holocaust article. We should do all we can to ensure that these terrible things never happen again and showing those images may help achieve this . However, the particular image that I want to remove is one produced by the killer himself for the purpose of his own promotion and self-aggrandisement, it does not show the effect of his killings or the harm caused to the victims, their families or the community. There is no evidence or even significant opinion that showing this picture could in any way reduce the possibility of future killings.

I am not suggesting that we hide anything or cover anything up just that we present information in a sensitive way and one that does not have the possibility of making things worse. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

I understand, and have understood what you have said and intend we do. My point is that having carefully considered the question - including the aspect of the intent of the image(s) - I come with a different conclusion than you do - I believe the purpose of illustrating both the subject, and his intent at self-portrayal and self-aggrandizement, far outweigh the hypothetical situation of Wikipedia influencing real-life events in a negative fashion. You and I are both making a value judgement and are coming to difficult and different conclusions. In the above example, you are choosing to kill the 50 people to save the baby, and I am choosing to kill the baby (or vice versa). Its an awful situation, and we are both kind and considerate people, but we arrive at different conclusions. Lastly, there is a much evidence that publishing this images promotes the actions of Breivik, as there of the opposite - so I think you claiming there is no evidence as an objection to this argument is a bit nonsensical. We are making a moral judgement, not cold scientific evaluations - as you quoted Jimbo saying. I am perfectly willing to have an evidence based debate on this question, however, you have so far focused on the morality of including the images, and morality is by definition not scientific, at least not as generally understood. --Cerejota (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So you want evidence?

It seems quite absurd to me that people are demanding concrete proof that there is a link between publicity and mass killers, when the potential for ham is so great. I am no expert on the subject but decided to have a very quick look to see what the generally accepted view in the subject is. Let us start with Wikipedia itself:

[7] According to Loren Coleman's book Copycat Effect, publicity about multiple deaths tends to provoke more,[10] whether workplace or school shootings or mass suicides.

Serial killer the FBI states that motives for serial murder include "anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking."

Not exactly beyond all reasonable doubt but clear evidence that we need to be cautious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If your evidence is a cryptozoologist, such as Loren Coleman, you will have to forgive me when I remain skeptical. A MSW doesn't make you an expert on these matters, either. --Cerejota (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Coleman is... not at all a good example to have chosen. He falls quite heavily for the "Correlation does not imply cuasation" fallacy. With that said, some of his work is good - he looks at the idea of mass publicity.

If we take his ideas at face value that is a strong argument for deleting this whole article. But, really, that's not supported in the current evidence. Off hand... it's hard to come up with anything that specifically would address this arena, but Buadrillard did some good work. Schmid has a good book which discusses these matters. And what they all agree on is that it is the widespread nature of the coverage in the national conciousness that causes the situation of copycat mass murderers. I'm perfectly happy to have a rational discussion about the merits of the image in depicting him, and how we can create a neutral and sensitive article. But your hypothesis is based on a faulty premise, fear and irrationality.

You're casting this as a situation where "OMG but hundreds could die, so what does the liklihood matter?". This is faulty premise, because if the liklihood is very low there is nothing to fear. If we live in fear we lose. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons why we should dismiss such concerns.

• Media publicity and Wikipedia coverage are two different things. There may be a strong effect on someone reliant on television for information when three or six or twelve television stations present a shooting as the important news of the week. That doesn't mean that having a Wikipedia article on this topic will give the same sense of importance. After all, we have detailed Wikipedia articles about Pokemon characters. The sense of aggrandizement through media coverage just doesn't apply to our wide-ranging operations.

I disagree completely. WP has a degree of permanence not found in the media, that is one of the reasons that BLP restrictions are so strict. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No more "permanence" than other Web sites, and with the deletionist moral panics around here, often less. Wnt (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect Martin. The reason for BLP protection is because a living person can sue for libel. If permanence were the issue, BLP violations would get oversighted/locked, and that doesn't happen.--Cerejota (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia coverage may prevent criminal acts. For example, people in Finland may read about how the police had such trouble finding transportation to the scene, and use this in proposals for better response. They may read about the heroes who rushed in to save people from the water and be inspired.

Can you tell me any way in which the image of a killer in fake uniform with a gun is going to prevent further attacks. Gan you provide one source to support this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there's any source to say that this particular picture will have either effect. But it does indicate that a killer would go out of his way to make a picture like this, possibly somehow revealing himself. My feeling is that the whole impact of the uniform is completely negated when you explain where he bought it, how he arranged these little decorations, took his picture - it's only effective propaganda if you somehow believe that it means something, not if you see it as a costume. Wikipedia's role is not to avoid strong propaganda images - not even in anti-Semitism - but to give the reader the tools to mount an immune response against them. Wnt (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Specifically, knowledge of the killer's manifesto and techniques can help to direct society's response in more productive directions. It shows that discrimination by how people look is indeed counterproductive, and gave Breivik a way to stroll past security precautions simply by presenting himself as a businessman. It shows that efforts to censor bomb-making recipes are entirely worthless, because after much deliberation Breivik chose a method which has been used in attacks since the days of the Unabomber, which is no secret at all, and for all his fancy tweaks to the technique it wasn't that effective.

I cannot imaging that anything we say will be news to the security forces. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Security forces often do security theater, whatever they or the politicians ordering them think looks like some kind of response. So no matter how skilled they themselves may be, to get them to do the right things, the general public has to be more sophisticated. Wnt (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Security forces" are but one of the actors involved in security matters in an open and free society. The education of all citizens contributes to generalized security, as increased awareness is always helpful. For example, mugshots are widely deployed by security forces world-wide as an aid to security.--Cerejota (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing Breivik's "logic", spelled out in English in western cultural terms, by which he wends his way from an anti-Muslim belief to attacking his fellow Norwegians, should do much to help our understanding of how such attacks occur in Iraq and elsewhere.

I am not against detail but we must be very careful that what we write does not in any way appear supportive of his actions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that we decided to cover crime, we decided to cover terrorism, we decided to cover this crime ... were all these things mistakes? Then surely it is no mistake to continue to cover the topic in full detail. Wnt (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Detail is fine but glorifying pictures are not. As I said above we must be very careful about how we present the detail. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That Coleman book is a joke, so I will not comment on it, (other than saying it is a joke....). We don't censor things, that is pretty damned simple. Shall we remove the articles on all bad people throughout history, or just sanitize them? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked for evidence and I gave it after a few minutes research on WP. If you like I will look for more. In the meantime, how about you provide some evidence that there is no significant risk in publishing glorifying images of a mass killer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait - so you've not even read the book your using as evidence? *sigh* Asking us to prove the negative is really bad logic... you've argued a hypothesis, it is on you to prove it. Above you say: Can you tell me any way in which the image of a killer in fake uniform with a gun is going to prevent further attacks. Gan you provide one source to support this? I agree. It is a pretty shaky hypothesis - that you do not apparently see the similarity to your own point is... well it suggests this conversation will do nothing to convince you from an under-informed, fear driven, point of view.

I suggest actually doing research before pushing a hypothesis. You now have a criminologist (me) and apparently a psychologist (Dbrodbeck) disagreeing with you... --Errant ^(chat!) 15:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point me to evidence that the disputed image will not cause any harm. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what Errant wrote. You are making a claim - that the images may cause harm - so you must provide evidence to support this. Nobody is under any obligation to disprove unsourced claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have given two sources so far, sources that seem sufficient for other WP articles, and I will give more. I do not need to prove anything. If there is a significant possibility that our actions might cause real harm we should reconsider them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin; my patience for your refusal to support your arguments, with sources you have read and understood, has expired, which means I frankly don't think this discussion is constructive any further. I've made my points multiple times, it feels like to deaf ears, if you get around to finding your evidence, understanding it, and presenting it properly then I'm quite happy to continue discussion (I gave you some pointers above) - until then this seems counter productive. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

More evidence from WP articles

“We have to take the Paris Hilton attention-seeking out of crime, or innocent people will be killed,

"If anybody cares about the victims in Blacksburg and if anybody cares about their children, stop showing this video now. Take it off the Internet."

Changes to wording

I have made two minor changes to the wording to make it less promotional. No content or detail is lost and I hope thise will not be too contentious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The changes themselves I don't care about, but your claim that using the word "compendium" is a promotion of the subject is quite frankly the first time I have heard anyone say that "compendium" is "better" than "document". I think the edit is pointless, and in fact, "compendium" is more descriptive and correct - as the document is not even in bulk his own creation, but in fact a compilation or compendium of other's work. I also strongly urge you to read WP:EUPHEMISM, because you are skirting dangerously disruptive territory here.--Cerejota (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to change it back if you wish. My concern is that the section now reads as a promotion for Breivik's views. WP:NPOV requires us to present views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources and WP:WEIGHT tells us not to give undue weight and coverage to fringe views, yet this section presents Breivik's 'manifesto' as though it is something other than the ravings of one deranged individual.

As you do not find making two minor changes then asking for others' opinion on them to your liking I will try a different approach. I will rewrite the section in a more encyclopedic manner and get opinion on that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with you making your edits, and most definitely I have no problem with discussing those edits. So I do not understand from where you get this idea that I do.

You ar emis applying WP:FRINGE here. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to the entire encyclopedia, it applies to a single article. For example, giving air to the ideas of Breivik in 2011 Norway attacks would have to be done in consideration to WP:UNDUE in terms of the entire topic. But this article is his biography - while due weight should be given to the notable aspects of his notability and biography. If you do not like his biography being here, take it to AfD. But as long as this exists, we must examine, at the depth that the WP:RS do, the ideas of Breivik, because the ideas of a person known for the actions that person took under their banner is a key part of the encyclopedic knowledge about that person. For example, "flat earth" is a WP:FRINGE idea when considered against Earth, but it is entirely acceptable to discuss it in the biography of Samuel Shenton, the founder of the Flat Earth Society. Those are the rules, with very little room for interpretation. You might make other arguments, but I suggest you desist of the line of reasoning that brings up WP:FRINGE if you want to be considered a good faith editor.--Cerejota (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox is an improvement

It says what he is noted for. --Javaweb (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Category:People from London

Please delete. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - there were reports that he was born in London (he is the son of a diplomat), but they were incorrect. He seems to have no other obvious links with London either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Joke image?

Resolved

 – Image cropped to exclude uniform. Swarm - Talk 05:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I presume the current lead image is some kind of joke. It is in very poor taste. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You really need to tone down the hyperbole, it is getting tedious. With that said I don't think this new image is any better - showing him in uniform gives an incorrect impression he is in some way a decorated military soldier (or whatever he is trying to portray). Which clearly is misleading to readers. This individual is still alive, and photographs of him will exist (either from the past or the future). There is no rush to portrait him in the infobox. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not even sure that this is a genuine image rather than some clever composite. Perhaps the originator could tell us the source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's cropped from the larger image from the manifesto. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I presume it was faked by Breivik himself then? It least we agree that it is unsuitable. Why not crop it some more so that we only get his face? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Listening to the discussion, I've come around to thinking that the picture of him pretending to be a soldier is fine as long as the picture is described accurately. A killer wanting a picture with his gun before a rampage is almost a cliche: see , the De Anza College planned shooting, |100px|| Virgina Tech killer, etc. My issue has always been accurately presenting the pictures even when the pictures themselves are not NPOV. --Javaweb (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I understand your thoughts and, in some other circumstances, I would agree that a picture that parodies or makes fun of a criminal might be acceptable, although it is not very encyclopedic and may cause distress to the families of those killed. In this case we need to consider the effect that such images might have on other deranged individuals out there. Brevivik clearly did not see those images as a joke and there is a risk that others may take them seriously. Let me make clear that I do not believe that we should not, in general, base what we write in WP on the possible effect on a susceptible minority but in this case, because of the risks (that I have now provided evidence for), we should try not to do anything that might provoke repeat attacks, if this can be done without degrading the article. In this case all we need to do is find a different picture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a picture of Breivik in a brown suit and one where he wears a black sweater that are more suitable. --Zero g (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Do you have a link. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, here you go:

http://tweeting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Picture-of-Norway-gunman.jpg --Zero g (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we even have any images of Breivik except those that he took of himself to promote his agenda, and those published by the press of him on the way to court? The latter might be a worse choice, because they show less of him and are copyrighted by the press, which complicates uploading them to Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 18:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The self portraits seem to be free images (multiple deletion discussions regarding these are still pending), so there's no justification for using copyrighted ones as of now. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Please pick a more suitable one. What is wrong with the headshot linked above? Didn't it used to be on the entry?Griswaldo (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted from Commons because of licensing issues (all content there must be free and the deletion discussion determined that this wasn't clear). So that's the funny thing. We're stuck with two bad, obviously self-promotional images (undecided at commons currently), while the neutral, most appropriate image is deemed unusable at Commons and people are demanding sanctions against anyone who uploads at Wikipedia, and we're facing the possibility of not having any images whatsoever (non-free content isn't allowed if the person is alive). What a joke. Swarm ^{u | t} 14:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the image to the one previously suggested, Breivik is not looking straight into the camera in this picture which I find a plus. This also is an unaltered image which better suits the licensing conditions. --Zero g (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I agree in principle, uploading the image (not your fault, I know) while all these licensing debates are still going on was disruptive. Swarm ^{u | t} 18:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik in black sweater.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik in black sweater.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik 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? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Breivik hate muslims but he think that Islam is potencial ally against global capitalism

WP:NOTFORUM causa sui (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In this german Website stand that he want a explusion of all muslims from europe but he would tolerate an caliphate in the middle east as a potencial ally against global capitalism.--95.114.252.44 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC) [8] An important observation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC) . . . PS, the article is in German. The author is a well-known proponent of Anti-German theories who appears to try to push his specific political agenda.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Yet, you might say Anders Behring was a segregationist who would murder for his ideology. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC) "You" might say that if reliable sources have said it. Let's stop this page from becoming a forum, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Please note that this IP belongs to a notorious troll on German Wikipedia who is known for islamophobic POV-pushing. For details, see de:User:Otberg/L50.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik Norway Suspect.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik Norway Suspect.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is he not called a Christian extremist / terrorist?

...when every petty Muslim criminal is called Islamist or Muslim terrorist/extremist? For your information:

- both categories of people are MOTIVATED by their faith (amongst other things such as politics) - both CLAIM to act as defendants of the Christian/Muslim world - defendants of both faiths hurry up to say that "xyz was not really a Muslim/Christian, but CLAIMED to be one"

I REALLY do not see anything but hypocricy in not naming Breivik a Christian extremist/terrorist.

Why does it matter? Because with this kind of policy, you are sending a message of legitimation to Muslims and Islamists alike that they ARE right about discrimination and bias in the West.

Please sign your posts with four tildes as the note above the edit window requests. Also I would like to ask all contributors to the article to avoid back-and-forth edits in dispute, and to register an account if you wish to make long term contributions. There are rules on wikipedia about this sort of editing and it will lead to the article being protected and a general target for vandalism. This sort of article is a magnet for contentious editing and those seeking to demonise or or defend and particular sensitive opinion that might be attached. By all means let us call a spade a spade - this is a christian terrorist - but please come to agreement on the talk page about how things should be worded. This article is not a platform or political vehicle for anyone, it is supposed to report verifiable observations from reliable sources. Obotlig (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:2011 Norway attacks is a subcategory of Category:Christian terrorism. So what's the issue here, exactly? This article is categorized as Christian terrorism. causa sui (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We use the descriptions provided in reliable sources. It may be that mainstream thinking is biased, etc., but that is something that must be debated there, not here. Not all Muslims who commit terrorist actions by the way are called Islamic terrorists, for example the Abu Nidal group and other Arab terrorist organizations from the 1980s. While a minority of scholars refer to Breivik as a Christian terrorist, the mainstream view is that he was a right-wing terrorist. TFD (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Christian terrorism

Do we need to talk this out? It keeps getting removed and deleted. causa sui (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Very misleading and should not be included. He was anti-Muslim, not pro-Christian. ... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He was a Christian and he was a terrorist. His religious beliefs where among the reasons that led him to kill left-wing people he regarded as "friends of Islam" and therefore enemies of his country and religion. That makes him a Christian terrorist, in my book. Polozooza (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

More likely anti-left, given his targets. But I am sure it could be argued, and has been argued, that 9/11 was anti-Christian or anti-American, not pro-Muslim. There are media voices talking about what went wrong with some parts of Christianity that made this possible, similarly to how Muslims examined what went wrong on their part afteer 9/11. The main differences lie in the different scales and in the lack of hysteria in the Norwegian reaction. Hans Adler 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem with the use of this category is the misunderstandings that it would spread in the form of: "His religious beliefs where among the reasons that led him to kill left-wing people ..." His religious beliefs? Hardly. I will not deny that he is Christian, but he's culturally Christian, not theologically Christian. This seems to escape people over and over and over again. In an ideal world this category would be informative, in this world it is just the opposite.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets focus on the content, not the editors. You are making narrow definition of "Christian" that we do not do for other religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, Scientology, etc. Religions are always both a series of theologies and a series of cultures, and acts explicitly done by the perpetrators in the name of either (as Breivik verifiably has), should be categorized under such. Its really that simple. Unlike you can provide us with relevant RS that counter the view of Brivik as a Christian terrorist in a significant volume and quality as those who do identify him as such, we shouldn't be even debating this, the category is a no-brainer. This category has the exact informative value as Category:Islamic terrorism, not more, no less. In a perfect world, we would have nuanced views that separate the theological, the cultural, and the political, but in this world we conflate all of them, and shouldn't pick and choose when we nuance and when we don't. Ce'est la vie...--Cerejota (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not focusing on editors I was focusing on a common misunderstanding. It appears that I was also completely misunderstood just now. I said that I will not deny that he is Christian. This could not be any clearer. What I was responding to was specifically the claim that "[h]is religious beliefs where among the reasons that led him to kill." That is simply not true. It had nothing to do with his Christian beliefs. Trust me I'm intimately aware of the many facets of religion, and I was not denying that group identity was one of them. The point is, that others seem to misunderstand how the man considered himself religious, and that it was his cultural/national/religious identity and not his beliefs that were in play here. Do you understand now. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a fairly clear cut case of Nationalist terrorism if you ask me. --Zero g (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Christianity, for this man, is part of his national identity. The role of religious identity should not be downplayed, but it should also not be turned into something more than it is.Griswaldo (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That is also the case with a number if people and groups categorized under Category:Islamic terrorism - for example, in the case of Palestinian militant attacks, national identity is clearly more important than religious consideration - Hamas self-describes as a national liberation organization, not a religious one, made more evident by clearly religious splinters like Islamic Jihad or Palestinian AL-Qaeda/Salafists. Again, I agree, in the real world, with the nuance you make, but we do not make this nuance in this encyclopedia, or at least, we do not do it as principled position that applies to other religions.--Cerejota (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Category:2011 Norway attacks is currently a subcategory of Category:Christian terrorism. I think that is the best way to handle it. See Christian_terrorism#Norway. causa sui (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Another edit and revert today, just wanted to add my voice. I agree with the above, though Breivik is clearly a Christian, there is no evidence to suggest that his religious beliefs formed any part of his motive to commit these crimes. The inclusion of the term "Christian terrorist" in this article is misleading, as it gives the impression that his acts of terrorism and his Christian beliefs are linked, which is simply not true. basalisk (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Breivik is a Christian and a terrorist. That doesn't mean he is a Christian terrorist. He is a terrorist who happens to be a Christian. JIP | Talk 18:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is RIDICULOUS! Breivik uses the Christian Order of the Templar's red cross on his manifesto with the motto De Laudere Novaea Militae Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici (In praise of the new knighthood - Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (aka Knights Templar). This is just ONE example that makes it EVIDENT that Breivik's actions and set of beliefs were at least to a certain degree motivated by his religion and his manifesto in fact contains numerous allusions and references to Christianity. So STOP being partial and Christey boys and end this ridiculous discussion. I am going to edit the article in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Single source vs. all other sources

Discussion

No news sources ever mentioned that Breivik supported White Nationalism. On August 25, User:Chainswede added to the article the unsupported view that Breivik was a White Nationalist, citing this source. This source is an article written by Benjamin R. Teitelbaum, PhD student at Brown University, USA, and translated to Norwegian by Cato Fossum. In the article, Teitelbaum expressed his belief that Breivik was a White Nationalist, even though--according to Teitelbaum himself--no one ever linked Breivik to White Nationalism and no journalists or researchers ever drew a similar conclusion. So, it is self-evident that this is about a single source going against all other sources. Wikipedia policy is clear in how we should treat this situation: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." [9] The view in question is a perfect example of a "tiny minority", because not only is it about only one source vs. all other sources, but it is also about a source that itself admits being alone in holding its view. Ojen04 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I guess we can wait until better studies of Breivik's compendium become available. Let me quote from the compendium however: Solutions for South Africa Divide the country in to two sovereign nations; one European nation and one African. This should be facilitated by the future European Federation as the current Boer/Afrikaner people are in no shape to administrate or ensure that this split is effectuated properly. The split should be based on historical significance of factors relating to development of the nation and should therefore be no less than 40% (Afrikaner/Boer/European)/60% African. The racist apartheid ideology should never be used again. Instead, the Afrikaner/Boer can (if they need the extra labour) issue 6 or 12 months work permits for specific sectors following the model illustrated in another chapter of this compendium. A security fence should separate the newly founded nations to prevent illegal immigration and potential attacks. That's a clear cut example of white separatism. So we may as well go ahead and add the label. --Zero g (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC) This looks confusing. Is it possible that he meant a state for Boer/Afrikaner culture and another for African culture? Because white separatism is a form of racism, yet Breivik says he is against racism. He also frequently described himself as anti-racist in his writings in document.no. Anyways, when you try to edit the article a notice reads: "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." This means we cannot add our own interpretations. Ojen04 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC) It seems clear that Afrikaner and Boer refer to ethnically Dutch (or whathaveyou) persons versus ethnic black or colored Africans but wthout a coherent analysis of the manifesto and reconciliation of what may be numerous contradictions the limitaton against interpreting this source would seem to bar any generalisations made based on a paraphrase of one section. Perhaps just adding the quote without labeling its ideology would be best. Obotlig (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC) This source continues to be a problem and some anonymous editor keeps pushing for the label of white nationalist. The article is a translation for one thing, the original source in English should be referenced for this wikipedia. At any rate I can read Norwegian well enough to see that no justification for this partiular ideology is given, only references to Breivik quoting some musicians he likes and who do not clealry fall into the same political categories. I find this very questionable as a reliable source. The anonymous contributor was unwilling to accept my compromise of indicating that the source supports Breivik admiring some musicians who are pro-white or pro-Nordic. I am not clear that even 'white' is ued consistently enough in these quotes that anyone could draw a conclusion about what political or ethnic beliefs might be indicated. Given the contradictions with evidence that Breivik claimed to oppose racism and be in support of Zionism I find this label white nationalism and this source very dubious. Rather than enter into and editing dispute with an anon contributor is there some resolution we can reach on this page. Personally I don't think even Breivik was sure of a logical and consistent belief system and we need a professional analysis of the manifesto as a whole to work from. Liking or quoting musicians doesn't support conclusions about the man's working ideologies. For example an ardent anti-feminist liking Saga doesn't make much sense. None of it makes enough sense to start tossing labels about when his apparent identity was as some sort of Christian Crusader against Islam. None of this seems logical and I would like to see an analysis involving experts in political science and psychology sorting out what may have been going awry in this man's mind. Can we please reach consensus on the talk page and ask for intervention against editing wars if necessary. Obotlig (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC) It is important to also keep in mind the "undue weight" issue here. The validity of assigning the label to Breivik is certainly relevant, but it is not alone sufficient to justify the inclusion of the label. As long as this is a tiny minority view, it should not be included per the policy quoted above. I have invited the anonymous editor to this discussion to address this point. Ojen04 (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) And note that the discussion on this page has been posted out of order, the original discussion started right below: This isn't a question of a view point (and thus a question of undue weight). The significance of the article is that it references THE MANIFESTO and summarizes and presents writings in it that show Breivik was motivated by race. The issue of the prominence of this presentation in commentary isn't germane to the posting on the Wiki page: Applying the label white nationalist has to do with Breivik's own writings, and there isn't a debate as to whether Breivik wrote those sections of the manifesto. If such a debate emerges, then we can asses whether we are giving undue weight to some position. BTW, not that it matters, but since the publication of that article various media sources have stopped distancing Breivik from race ideology--this includes the regional experts on political extremism, the Swedish magazine Expo. Look at their most recent print version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.174.129 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC) It is not a view to say that these sections are part of the manifesto, but it is a view to say that these sections mean that Breivik is a white nationalist. And since this view is a tiny minority view, i.e., a non-widely-held view, the inclusion of it--and especially as currently done--violates one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, it does not matter how much a view looks right as much as it matters how widely held that view is in reliable sources. To include a view on Wikipedia, you will need to provide reliable sources that demonstrate that it is more than a tiny minority view, and to present it as a mainstream view as you did in this case, you will need reliable sources that demonstrate it as such. User Zero g's suggestion of waiting for what other studies have to say seems to be the wisest solution. So, do you mind removing the label for now? Ojen04 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Ok, sure, we can look at it like that. But I still don't think this will fly for you. Below I've given you a quick overview of mainstream commentary, from around the world, reflecting the notion that Breivik was motivated by race. Some simply report that the media at large is making such a categorization. Some of these sources list him as a white nationalist, some use other labels. If you can find another term to summarize what commentators are saying about him, I would be interested to hear it. But I certainly think white nationalist best encompasses it, and it is the term of choice of the most comprehensive article on the subject--the Dagbladet article. http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/Editorial+years+after/5384146/story.html http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/birth-of-a-grave-new-world-20110818-1iyqb.html http://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/international-dimensions/item/364-mapping-norwegian-killer-anders-breivik%E2%80%99s-web-postings http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/07/norway-attacks http://www.thenationalstudent.com/Features/2011-07-28/comment_I_say_BOMB_you_say.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/07/482658.html?c=on http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/anders-behring-breivik-pim-fortuyn http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,777710-4,00.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/29/anders-breivik-s-u-s-brethren-hate-groups-surging-in-america-splc-says.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/30/norway-attacks-anders-behring-breivik http://www.slate.com/id/2300099/ http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/article4218354.ece http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/the-al-qaeda-myth/244857/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.174.129 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC) You may have not looked carefully at these sources, because many of them actually agree that Breivik's focus was Islam, not race, and especially the major ones (smh.com.au, spiegel.de, guardian.co.uk, thedailybeast.com, economist.com, aftenposten.no) do not support your view that he is a white nationalist or was motivated by race. At least one of your sources seems to be a case of this (one lazy journalist being influenced by misinformation on Wikipedia and then Wikipedia editors quoting his article as original press work). This is evidenced in the Calgary-Herald source, which was published at a time when this label was present on Wikipedia and used identical wording to that of the Wikipedia article. Also, being motivated by race is not necessarily the same as being a white nationalist, and anti-Muslim racism (what the aftenposten.no source talks about) is not white nationalism, but anti-Islam. The indymedia.org.uk source which claims that Breivik is a nazi sympathizer explicitly contradicts a prominent Norwegian source, social scientist Lars Gule, who stated that Breivik has no neo-nazi background, and the Spiegel article to which you linked agrees with this. The few sources that actually agree with your view are mostly minor or little known sources, not the major ones, and this only re-enforces my point that this view is not a mainstream view in the media. Wikipedia policy requires us not to give prominence to non-mainstream views. I have edited the article accordingly. Ojen04 (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Is consensus your standard or not? Or maybe it is just consensus when it serves your purpose. Let me begin by addressing your post in reverse order. I give you a selection of mainstream, prominent commentary claiming he was motivated by race, and you respond by saying your pet expert is more important, and then you yourself, ironically, go on to conflate neo-Nazism with white nationalism (see below). Gule is an incredibly political philosopher who began making his statements well before he could have had a chance to read through the manifesto, and is, at the very least, no trump card. Further, nobody said that race was the primary motivating factor. I doubt you, or anybody thinks that Serbian Paramilitarism, or Zionism, or anti-feminism was a primary motivating factor, but you haven't assailed these labels. The Calgary article was also written after the Dagbladet article--and just as that article changed the way the real experts (the newspaper Expo) wrote about Breivik, so too might it have changed the way they did in Calgary--Google translate versions of the article popped up in English around the net shortly after its publication in Norway (and by the way, no it didn't copy the Wikipedia language. Does Wiki really have a patent for using antifeminist, white nationalist, and Islamaphobic, regardless of order, in the same sentence when describing Breivik). I don't have a clue what you are saying about the aftonposten article--to say that Islamaphobia channeled racism is certainly not to say that racism disappears in the transition. The sentiment you see in these articles (running down themes from the links in your parenthetical: "He saw link between his Nordic genes and the means whereby Europe would be preserved...," genocide [admittedly, the weakest], shares fear that whites become minority, hatred of non-whites, Nazi features, racist) is that race, and the continued existence and well being of whites was a motivating factor, one worth mentioning in discussions of his ideology. This consensus is expressed with different labels, sometimes carelessly, but we would be inappropriately omitting a vital element of commentators' understanding of Breivik's ideology were we to omit this, and the term white nationalist best encompasses this consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.174.129 (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC) The second guy is right, if a little sloppy. Most commentators talk about Breivik in these terms (here is another source he missed http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201182984256236502.html), and if they distance him from race ideology, it is usually Nazism specifically. It's not at the forefront of discussions about Breivik's ideology, but it deserves to be included in the list at the beginning of the page, probably in the subordinated position it is in now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chainswede (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from making personal attacks. I did not conflate neo-nazism with white nationalism; what I meant is that the indymedia source is in conflict with a prominent Norwegian source and your own link to Der Spiegel, and this puts its credibility in question. Your personal opinion on Gule is irrelevant. You are not allowed to do a synthesis of sources, and again, being motivated by race is not necessarily the same as being a white nationalist. What is so difficult in understanding that "this is not a mainstream view and should not be presented as such in the article". I find it ironic that you want to make us believe that this is a mainstream view when Teitelbaum himself acknowledges it as not being so. It can be clearly seen from your own links that the major news sources do not at all point to white nationalism. The sources that you provided may justify having a sentence about this view in the body of the article with clear attribution to Teitelbaum, which I already did (see the "Manifesto" section), but since this view is not a mainstream view in the media, i.e., not widely held, not echoed in major news sources, it should not be given prominence and should not be included in the lead without attribution, per the neutrality policy. Ojen04 (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC) My personal opinion on Gule is irrelevant? What about yours? To say that he is prominent is not the same as saying he is reliable. And again, what he, and the Spiegel says is that he was no Nazi, which does not mean he was not motivated to fight for what he saw as the interests of a white race (which the Spiegel doesn't actually deny, though they do talk about him fearing a Muslim-directed genocide [this was the weakest link I sent, which is why you latched on to it]). I clarified, multiple times, how it can be that Teitelbaum says it isn't a mainstream view, but that it is nonetheless, and I provide evidence of that, and you have yet to comment on that. I gave you a run down of the language in the other articles that you seem to consider serious (the Economist says he has a hatred of non-Whites, the Guardian says that Nazi-elements that sat alongside anti-Nazism, the Australian paper said "He saw link between his Nordic genes and the means whereby Europe would be preserved," Aftonposten called him a racist, Daily Beast said he shared a fear that whites would become a minority) but you refuse to accept this. The link Chainswede posted from Al jazeera is even better--what are you going to say about that? There is a widespread theme of saying, in different ways, that he was motivated by race, and the best way to encapsulate this is with the term white nationalist. Or maybe you have a better term--I'd love to hear it. This has been nothing but a barrage of hypocrisy (especially your accusing me of edit warring when you've been mirroring my actions) and goal shifting from your side. You don't need to keep posting links about undue weight and the like--I understand them fine. I've shown you how they don't apply, but you won't listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.174.129 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Article was posted written by an expert on extremism in Scandinavia, in one of Norway's largest papers, citing the manifesto. Ojen and Obotlig brought up the issue of undue weight, and those criticisms were answered. P.S. Nice try with the synthesis argument--at least one of the sources states the claim outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.174.129 (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC) To 184.96.174.129: Could you please state which source states the claim outright? That would be more helpful. To Ojen04: The Dagbladet article is still a good source and there is nothing wrong with using it to say that Teitelbaum believes that Breivik was a white nationalist. That is not a far-fetched idea. Excluding minority and fringe views in this case would be more appropriate for excluding someone saying Breivik was a black supremacist and a Marxist. To both of you: please indent your new posts, this wall of text is hard to read. You do this by placing colons at the beginning of each line, and after five or six indents placing {{od}}. In general: Breivik does not self-identify as a white nationalist but does take many white nationalist positions. Still, Wikipedia doesn't decide what the sources mean, it only summarizes what sources say. As such, we should wait until multiple reliable sources state that Breivik is a white nationalist before we identify him as such. We can (and should) state what reliable sources say about him, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC) If you read my last post you would know that I totally agree with you. And I have already went on to add Teitelbaum's view in the "Manifesto" section of the article. 184.96.174.129 seems to be unwilling to understand Wikipedia policy. Ojen04 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) The Daglbadet article states it outright. Here, is what a UCSB professor writes in the Al Jazeera article Chainswede posted above: "The underlying presumption of Breivik's thoughts is that White European interests, investments, and identity are what "politics" should protect and serve in a zero-sum game pitted against peoples of other racial and ethnic backgrounds." That's called White nationalism. There are other articles, including on in the Calgary article posted above, that use the label white nationalist. I have supplied evidence that this is not a tiny minority. Ojen seems oblivious to the fact that I can both understand the wiki policies, and think he is wrong nonetheless. And if our standard is that Breivik self-identifies with these labels, then surely we must remove Islamaphobic (irrational fear of Muslims), and perhaps some others. And no, Obotlig (fitting name by the way) the Dagbladet article is not in the end "about musical tastes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.174.129 (talk • contribs) Ojen04: Pardon me, but massive wall of unindented text was a bit hard on the eyes to sort out. 184.96.174.129: please place new posts at the bottom of the conversation and please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Teitelbaum reference and anon editor again

I don't personally have a problem with the white nationalist label being in the article (it even seems sensible) but the anon editor keeps pushing it with on a ref of the Teitelbaum article, which is not even the original but a translation and which is about his musical tastes written by an expert on music. This is not abiding by WP:RS WP:UNDUE WP:BLP etc. and there also seems to be edit warring over it. Can we please just insert some additional, better sources which use the specific label of white nationalism directly into the article directly by the label and cease the flat reverts. Mentioning justiications on a talk page is not the same as providing refs in the article. I hate to be playing this role on this unpleasant article but it is not a place for agendas and biases to be tacked on without regard to BLP etc policies. Obotlig (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See comments above.

(From Obotlig's talk page)Nonsense. Why haven't you asked for the same with the other labels (anti-feminism, Serbian paramilitarism)? These have one source apiece, and you will not find language implying that this is important to his ideology saturating as much commentary as we see with race ideology. Were I to move the stronger sources from Ojen's talk page to the main page, would that satisfy you (I just saw a very nice reference from Al-Jazeera was posted there)? You now have a thorough article, written by an expert on radical nationalism, published in one of Norway's biggest and best papers, citing the manifesto frequently, speaking to an observation that is expressed in a slew of articles from serious news organizations from around the world. And with this I add a broad label to the END of a fairly long, and in some cases detailed, list of ideological affiliations 184.96.174.129 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am just asking for the stronger sources to be in the article itself. Also, for those other labels the relevant citations should appear immediately afterward not in a later cluster. If you have the time to fix that I would appreciate it. Thanks. Obotlig (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed You have not yet honored this. Teitelbaum source can't support the label for above reasons. Other labels in list are propey documented. Please insert with reliable source and place ref immediately after label of white nationalism. Thanks. Obotlig (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see why the article in Dagbladet wouldn't be considered a reliable source. It supports its claims with references to Breivik's own writings. I'd say it is as well supported as all the other descriptions, perhaps except for "national conservative" which I think he himself uses to define his ideology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Teitelbaum's view is included in the "Manifesto" section with attribution. The neutrality policy states that non-mainstream views should be attributed to the writer. Teitelbaum in his article acknowledged that his view is not a mainstream view. Ojen04 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes his Serbian paramilitary classification a mainstream view?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is not a mainstream view we can go and remove it as well. Ojen04 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see earlier versions of this page for the full discussion. I can summarize the debate with Ojen: he describes wiki rule about giving undue weight, I contest the notion that this is undue weight (with sources), he describes wiki rule about giving undue weight. He has not sufficiently engaged with my claim that this is not a case of undue weight; he just keep stating that giving undue weight is bad. Obotlig seems to be the only person who rejects the Dagbladet article (see earlier discussion), so I am going to move on from that question. I will however place the reference next to the label. 184.96.174.129 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you continue the discussion without reverting? Just once. Ojen04 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is how the discussion has proceeded. If recounting it feels like a personal insult to you, that should tell you something. I invite you to engage my (and Chainswede's) latest set of points on the earlier version of this page so that the discussion may indeed continue.184.96.174.129 (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)