Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

IP: Let's go by the manifesto

SERIOUSLY ALL. He left the world a huge manifesto explaining all his views. Refrences about his political views should not be to people in the media writing what they think his views are/were. They should be based on references to his manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.195.26 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 25 September 2011

On the contrary - we should write our article based on secondary sources, not primary sources like the manifesto, wherever possible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and this has already been extensively discussed. Aside from the usual reasoning of not wanting editors to synthesize an analysis, in this case there is no reason to believe any consistency can be found throughout the extensive manifesto. You couldn't quote or paraphrase it without someone else raising another element in conflict; the absurd length of it leaves even usng quotes impractical. Obotlig (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

White nationalism

Although he doesn't make it immediately clear, there is plenty of evidence that Breivik is in favour of white nationalism. He quotes Madison Grant and expresses concern that the 'Nordic race' will be extinct within 200 years. He also condemns miscegenation due to its destructive nature in that physical and psychological characteristics are lost as a result, and notes that it is a lot more common for white females to date non-white males than it is for white males to date non-white females. When Breivik says he is 'anti-racist', he means that he thinks it is wrong to keep a black person as a slave. He does not mean that he is just OK with miscegenation or white people being driven down the path to extinction in the long run. Breivik would not be just OK with black men dating white women, even if the majority of his hatred is directed against Muslims and Cultural Marxists.--Nothingeverhappensever (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the Whie Nationalism label has already stuck here and the things you cite range from fear of genocide or extinction of his own kind to racism to views against "miscegenation" - how many labels do you want applied? Come up with reliable sources and tack them on if you wish. We can make the article introduction a potpourri laundry list of every belief every commentator likes, dislikes, observes or wishes was there. Let's not stop until there are 500 subcategories of demonisable opinions separated by commas. By all means. Let's forget the article is about a man who murdered a bunch of teeagers at a summercamp and make it a platform-for-every-idea-we-do-not-like. Obotlig (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Knights Templar

I was reading and I wonder if the image for the seal of the Knights Templar makes any sense on this page. Regardless of this article's subject person's interest in them it is unlikely that that image has anything to do with his beliefs or this topic at all. I understand the desire for images, but I feel this one is out of place. Thoughts? fr33kman 21:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the image relates to the real historical Knights Templar, and has nothing at all to do with Brevik's (supposed) organisation - I've removed it. We shouldn't be giving any credence to any linkages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Anders Breivik was heavily influenced by the Serbian state sponsored hate propaganda from the 90's Balkans war.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/07/norway-killings?page=2

http://www.islamicpluralism.org/1848/norwegian-demons-and-the-serbian-connection

http://abitmoredetail.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/link-links-on-breiviks-hatred-of-ex-yugoslav-muslims-and-women/

http://www.minnpost.com/nickhayes/2011/07/29/30398/what_anders_breivik_has_in_common_with_war_criminals

This must be incorporated into the article.Serbian wartime hate propaganda that started the wars in the 90's is still alive and very well in the extremist circles and will probably cause more deaths in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is already prominently referenced in the article. However it seems to be an issue of great personal concern to you and this is not the proper forum for promoting this issue. European fear of Islam has a long history and Breivik drew on many sources. Lets try to keep the talk pages as neutral as possible, although I can understand that the war crimes in Bosnia may be a very sensitive and still current topic. Obotlig (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Breivik dont have anything against Islam

An austrian political sientist wrote about Breivik that he has an affinity to closed culture like in Japan, so he think it is necerssary to assimilate or expel muslims, but he havent nothing against Islam, he is so misogynstic like the orthodox Islam. He would support Iran and Saudi-Arabia against US and EU globalistic capitalists.[1]--95.114.91.75 (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Category:Christian terrorism

I have removed this because it's an uber-category to Category:2011 Norway attacks. We don't put every country on Earth into Category:Earth (or Category:Universe for that matter). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is hardly self-evident that '2011 Norway attacks' is in the 'Christian terrorism' category though, is it? Surely the point of categories is to help readers find related material - and they shouldn't have to hunt it down in less-than-obvious places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

what are you trying to impart?-- mustihussain (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So what's the category for then? Adding another line at the end of the article? If it's so useless, why was it created? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Which category? And why do you think it is useless? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are saying that Category:2011 Norway attacks is difficult to find, not obvious, and hardly self-evident. By that logic, you need to add Category:Terrorism in Norway, Category:Terrorist incidents in 2011, Category:Massacres in Norway, Category:Deaths by firearm in Norway, and Category:Mass murder in 2011 to this article — all of which are uber-categories. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything of the sort. Both topics clearly relate to the article - and we shouldn't assume that readers understand the finer points of Wikipedia categories. They are aids to navigation, and should be used as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly makes "Christian terrorism" so special that it needs to be included twice (and my removing it with explanatory edit-summary is labeled as "blatant vandalism")? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'Christian terrorism' category was included only once. In may very well also be included in the '2011 Norway attacks' category, but as I have already explained, we can't expect readers to know that. Unless you can give a valid reason as to why having the 'Christian terrorism' link in the article is a disadvantage to readers (as opposed to being something you just don't like), it should stay. This is common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. The killer says he modeled himself after the terrorist Bin Laden. --Javaweb (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Javaweb, you completely missed the point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If anything the attacks are logically a subtopic of their sole perpetrator. I don't get this. Also the use of "uber" in this context is strange and confusing. It would be a good contrast (if spelled correctly) for unter but I think we would be better off in English saying "super" and "sub" if it would please you. Obotlig (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing suggests that Breivik's religion played any significant part in his actions, neither in motivation nor in carrying out the attacks. -- Heptor _talk 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not consider his desire to create a Christian Europe to have anything to do with Christianity? (But at any rate, this is beside the point - it's not up to us to decide whether he was motivated by Christianity, we go by secondary sources which say so.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a statement that Breivik wanted to create Christian Europe in the leade of this article, citing four secondary sources. However I couldn't find this statement made in any of those sources. Closest i could find was that he listed "Christian" under his religion on his Facebook pofile[2]. Have I overlooked something or is there a mistake in the article? At least I can't remember this statement made anywhere else. -- Heptor _talk 10:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the statement as a pre-caution, before some lazy journalist picks it up and puts it in a secondary source. I have no prejudice against putting it back if sources are found. -- Heptor _talk 10:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail writes that "[Police investigator] said the suspect posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies. He did not describe the websites in any more details." This alone can not justify writing that he is a "Christian Fundamentalist". -- Heptor _talk 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't in the currently cited sources, so thanks for pointing that out, but it can be restored with, say, this source ("I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That source says that Breivik once tried to explain his view in a prayer. It does not follow by itself that he was a Christian Fundamentalist. -- Heptor _talk 11:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We didn't write that he was a fundamentalist, so that's okay. (Only that he was initially called a fundamentalist in the media.) I now have absolutely no idea what part or parts of this article you object to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's true, I think I misunderstood that sentence was a bit. In any case, there is a difference between "European Christendom" and "Christian Europe". I think the latter kind of has fundamentalist tones in it, which are not present in the source. I edited the sentence to better reflect the source, I hope it is OK now. -- Heptor _talk 19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

PeRshGo, why did you put "Christian Europe" back in? No such concept appears in the source. -- Heptor _talk 22:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your current edit is the most accurate. PeRshGo (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the sentence as is stands - "It regards Islam and "cultural Marxism" as the enemy, and argues for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism, to preserve European Christendom." - is not very accurate either. This formulation makes it look like "to preserve European Christendom" was the ultimate goal in this "manifesto". There is no basis in the sources for claiming that. The only reference is to Brevik's claim that he once prayed to God and, in the prayer, claimed that what he was doing was essential to preserve Christian Europe. It does not by itself mean that preservation of Christian Europe was his ultimate goal.

I have to say that I am really uncomfortable with debating the finer points in the reasoning of this mass murderer, at least this soon after the tragedy. So I am rescinding myself from editing this part of the article, on NPOV grounds if nothing else. -- Heptor _talk 14:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Image of Skøyen

While I appreciate the effort to locate relevant images, I am unsure if File:Sondre Skoyen park.JPG really is a good illustration of the area where Breivik was raised. The image shows a luxurious mansion in a park, and it might lead readers into thinking that Breivik's home looked like that. His actual residence was an apartment in a fairly unremarkable low-rise block (see for an image). Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the image may be appropriate. Perhaps someone could ask on the wikimedia commons or Norwegian wikipedia if anyone would be willing to take a picture for us, if it is worth the trouble. Understanding the origins of a person like this does seem worthwhile. Obotlig (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect category Norwegian anti-communists

The category Norwegian anti-communists is nonsense. He used, oddly, "cultural marxism"/"marxism" as a synonym for "multiculturalism" and those he blamed for the multicultural society. So in his view, the Conservative Party of Norway (or anyone who didn't hold his own irrational Islamophobic far-right Zionist views) was "marxist". There is no evidence he held what is generally agreed upon to constitute anti-communist views (i.e. opposition to the totalitarian ideology known as communism). JoshSan (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And your evidence that it is "generally agreed" that communism is a "totalitarian ideology" can be found where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really interested in revisionism. Apart from that, your question is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed (which is whether he was opposed to communism, or whether he used "marxism" when actually referring to conservatives, social democrats and liberals). JoshSan (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so where is the source for that? You state what you assert are 'his views', without saying where they are from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's you, not me, who's inserting material in the article, so it's you who need to come up with your source. JoshSan (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we'll leave the 'anti-communist' category out, while we wait for response from others. Now give me a source to justify your insertion of 'Zionist terrorism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

His Zionism is discussed and sourced in the article and even mentioned in the lead. I see no reason to include Christian terrorism while excluding Zionist terrorism. They are equally relevant. JoshSan (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• His support for Zionism and simultaneous engagement in terrorism does not make him classifiable with the category "Zionist terrorism" which is for terrorism motivated by zionism - Just like he is not classifiable with Serbian nationalist terrorism - even though he also supported serbian nationalism. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a difference between Zionism and Serbian nationalism. It never says he is an "Israeli nationalist", a Zionist is not bound by borders or nations or cultures - you have Christian zionists in many countries. To label Breivik a Serbian nationalist is ridiculous to begin with, since he is not a Serbian - he only has sympathies for Serbian nationalists for their opposition to (Bosnian) muslims, the same way he also has sympathies for Hindu nationalists for mostly the same reason. Breivik, I'd say, is a simple man with a simple wordview: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and his primary enemy is Islam. So yes, he is a Zionist, and yes he sympathies with several nationalists movements across the glove. And yes, this is notable, and backed my many sources. But it's already in the lead and explained further down the article, so I personally don't see the need to also add him in those categories. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Then I assume his supposed support for Christianity and simultaneous engagement in terrorism does not make him classifiable with the category "Christian terrorism" which is for terrorism motivated by Christianity (he was motivated by Islamophobia as we all know, and as is extremely well sourced). Or is this a clear case of double standards? He was just as much a Zionist (terrorist) as he was Christian/a Christian terrorist. JoshSan (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

His Zionism can also be explained by his Christianity. Many Christians, mainly protestants, are very pro-Israel and identify very much with Zionism. Zionism is not a faith, though, unlike Christianity, or Islam. It's a political movement influenced by faith and ethnicity, but it is not a religion by itself. If you want to add him in this category, I am fine with it. But I think the Christian terrorist category alone is sufficient enough. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In Norway, the majority of Christians are certainly not very pro-Israel. In fact, the Israel lobby (which is a fringe group in Norway) accuses the Church of Norway of being very anti-Israel. Being pro-Israel/Zionist and being Christian are completely separate things. JoshSan (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I never was against including him the Zionist terrorism category in the first place. I just didn't think it was needed, but you've convinced me. Since this part of his ideology is well-referenced and sourced, I think we have plenty of reasonable arguments to place back the category. You have my support, for whatever that's worth. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are there any sources that explicitly mentions any relation to "zionist terrorism" and not just to "zionism"? if not adding the category is of course synth.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of sources which explicitly reject the idea that he is a "Christian terrorist"[3]. The article also points out that he by "marxists" (used in quotation marks) "meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan" and that he believes marxists to "[control] almost all the political parties". JoshSan (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the 'anti-communist terrorism' category, apparently Breivik has described himself as a military commander the 'Norwegian anticommunist resistance movement' (Google translate from Norwegian: "Han kalte seg også militær kommandør i det han kaller den norske antikommunistiske motstandsbevegelse". Article here: [4]) That seems sufficient to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Breivik can describe himself as demi-god, if he wants. Would that be enough to include the article in mythology? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a nonsense argument. What, if not the fact that he calls himself an anti-communist terrorist, would be sufficient for inclusion?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He has not described himself as an anti-communist terrorist. JoshSan (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sighs. The category "Norwegian anti-communists" is by definition a category for people involved in opposition to communism. Anders Behring Breivik is involved in opposition to the ruling parties of Norway (none of which are communist) and attacked a youth camp of the (anti-communist) Social Democratic Party. There are no sources at all supporting the claim that he has been involved in any sort of opposition to the ideology described in the article titled communism. He has referred to the ruling parties of Norway (none of which are communist, on the contrary they are all anti-communist) as "communist", but if we take his words for that, that would be both a violation of neutrality and politically extreme, we would implicitly accept his claim that his opponents are communists when they are not. I've not seen any sources discussing his attitude to the various communist parties of Norway, or the ideology described in the article titled communism (i.e., communism, the real one, not the one in his fantasy world which encompasses the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, and the Social Democratic Party). He uses the words communism/marxism with a different meaning than the generally accepted meaning which is also the meaning Norwegian anti-communists is used in. Describing his use of the term "marxist" in the body of the article is fine, but the category Norwegian anti-communists (which is chiefly used for Cold War-era opponents of the Soviet Union) is irrelevant and has nothing to do with Breivik, and including it constitutes a breach of neutrality. JoshSan (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because Breivik claims something, it does not mean that we uncritically should insert categories into the article based solely on his claims. He also claims to represent a continuation of WWII-era resistance and cites Winston Churchill and Max Manus as his main idols. Should he be included in the respective categories relating to WWII-era resistance? JoshSan (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The same is done for Christian terrorism. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing; one cannot be a Christian and a terrorist. All entries in the category go by what the deranged individuals claim they were doing, not what they actually did. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a nonsense and a bigoted argument... One cannot be a Jew and a terrorist, or a Muslim and a terrorist, or a Hindu and a terrorist yet we call these people by their name too. Did Osama bin Laden ever describe himself as a "Muslim terrorist"? Nope. He prefered to be seen as a holy warrior, a freedom fighter. But what he did was commit acts of terror, so we write that he is a terrorist. Makes sense, doesn't it? Breivik may see himself as a reincarnated medieval crusader, he may see himself as the second coming of Christ for all I care, he's still a terrorist and his actions were motivated by both religious and political reasoning. You cannot deny the fact that Breivik is a terrorist simply because he is Christian and you don't want to associate Christianity with nutjobs like him. For the same reason you cannot make up bullshit claims like "he's a cultural Christian" or "he is not a real Christian". Then next thing you know, someone writes "Osama bin Laden is a cultural muslim and not a real one, since REAL believers cannot be terrorists". If we apply this logic to all cases of terrorists and mass-murderers, there would be no such thing as a religious terrorist. But we all know they excist and no sane person would ever claim that no religious terrorism excists. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that really matters in Wikipedia is what the reliable sources write on Breivik. Our own brilliant analysis is irrelevant. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Appearance in Court

FYi: "Norway Killer in First Public Court Hearing"
"The anti-Muslim extremist who confessed to a bombing and shooting massacre that killed 77 people in Norway tried to declare himself a resistance leader at his first public court hearing but was quickly cut off by the judge."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190504577037813540267528.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Zionism qualification in the lead, again

Regarding this revert: The question has been discussed in July in length, and the consensus was reached to distinguish Breivik views (qualified as far-right Zionism) from mainstream Zionism. Unless counterargument based on solid reliable sources is presented there is no reason to deviate from the established consensus. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He is a Zionist, no need to add "far-right" to the description. It's well known that Breivik is both far-right and a Zionist at the same time. He is not a moderate rightist zionist, a leftist zionist, a liberal zionist, he is just "a Zionist" as in, someone who sympathises with the Zionist cause. It's just that simple. We don't need to go into detail more in the lead. In fact, it's distracting. Because for it to be fair and square, we'd have to write he does not support "Serbian nationalism", but "far right Serbian nationalism". There is no need to distinguish Breivik's Zionist views any further in the lead. He supports Zionism. The rest is written in the actual article, and has no place in the lead. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you base this view on reliable sources, since the above is your own analysis? Otherwise we have to stick to the established consensus, mentioned above. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Most sources do not explicitly mention "far-right zionism", rather they mention plain zionism or Breivik having "a sympathy for Israel". Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not correct. Among the sources that mention Zionism, the majority simply say that he consider himself a Zionist, but do not qualify him as such. The ones that actually go into analysis of his views, describe them as "far-right Zionism", "conservative Zionism", "proto-Zionism", by that distinguishing them from mainstream Zionism. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reuters Citation in Opening Paragraph

The Reuters source used to demonstrate that the article's subject is a "right wing extremist" - as detailed in the opening para - reads as follows:

" The Norwegian man detained after twin attacks in Norway on Friday that killed at least 17 people has links to right-wing extremism, independent Norwegian television TV2 reported on Saturday, without disclosing its sources."

So, Reuters is quoting a Norwegian TV station who, in turn, quote an 'undisclosed source' that says the subject has 'links' to 'right-wing extremism'. Using that as a reference, how can we say, wrt Wiki guidelines, that this shows that the subject is, in fact, a 'right-wing extremist'.

Another, more solid, source is needed, IMHO. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How someone in earnestly will argue that a sourced statement that Breivik is an "extremist" is should be removed on accuracy grounds is beyond my understanding. He killed 68 people because he didn't agree with their politics. That is the definition of extremism. The statement is sourced. I don't know what is worse - that you challenge a sourced statement just because you don't know where they got their information from - or the fact that you would even consider challenging that he is an extremist. This is really disturbing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• Goodwin, M. (2011), Europe's Radical Right: Support and Potential. Political Insight, 2: 4–7
• Jerrold M. Post The Generation of Vipers: The Generational Provenance of Terrorists SAIS Review - Volume 31, Number 2, Summer-Fall 2011, pp. 111-122
• [10]

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• OK - so you have sourced better citations and reverted my edits (now using even more sensationalist descriptors). Perhaps I shall go and edit Mohamed Atta's article to call hime something like, "An Moslem extremist follower of a pederast worshiping cult." - with appropriate sources, naturally ;-) Eddie.willers (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So your problem wasn't the sources afterall... you just don't think it is fair to call him an extremist. It would be a valid argument to say that calling him both extremist and terrorist is redundant. But what the sources actually say is that he had, and boasted to have, connections to right wing extremist organizations - in addition to being an extremist/terrorist himself. I don't give a rats ass about what you do to the Mohammed Atta article ... if you follow policy in doing it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should read "a right-wing extremist, Christian terrorist, and confessed perpetrator of..." Anything less would be euphemistic and a whitewashing. The sources for these labels are already present and widespread. And I would have a geat deal of scorn for anyone who calls my personal views into question on this. A spade is a spade. Obotlig (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia calling things absurd

Re: the following content added back here after I reverted it's addition.

• Attention was focused on his absurd ideas including that his so-called "Knights Templar" organisation would take power in Europe and insert him as regent of Norway, and his ideas of using Norwegians in breeding projects and place them in reservations.

It seems I wasn't clear. I removed it because Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice shouldn't be used to describe things as "absurd". It's an opinion that needs to be attributed to who ever said they were absurd. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that I used a rather pov-term, although it was not very intentional. My primary intent was simply to add these key ideas of his to the article, and I have thus already corrected my old edit. —Filippusson (t.) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Norwegian newspapers, the psychiatric report (not available to the public) described those ideas as "bizarre delusions", which has a specific meaning in psychiatry. Maybe the word "bizarre" could be used instead. Theis101 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Trigger-points"

During interrogation, Breivik has explained what he sees as the "trigger-points" in his youth for becoming hostile to Muslims. He has explained several clashes with immigrant youth of Pakistani and African backgrounds when he was around 15-17 years old, including being beaten up and robbed on several occasions (once broke his nose).[11] (Google translate) I think this should be included in the article. —Filippusson (t.) 12:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

yeah? the guy has been caught lying several times. his "clashes" with the so-called "immigrant" youth are not verifiable [12]. breivik is clearly not a reliable source. even gang members term him a lying "low life" [13]. -- mustihussain (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't said that it necessarily is true, but it is nevertheless relevant for the article. At least according to himself, this is the background for how he shaped his political views. —Filippusson (t.) 12:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a single brief mention in Dagbladet of Breivik's claims justifies inclusion. No doubt all sorts of things will be said in his defence, and we don't need to list them all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Explaining his reasoning is not a defense, what he did was reprehensible no matter the motive. 174.113.134.157 (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Description of Mini-14 rifle

An anon editor objected to the description of the Mini-14 as a "carbine" and refered to the Ruger Mini-14 and Carbine articles which explicitly support this characterisation. This editor also removed the mention of the fact that some models of this rifle are select fire (fully automatic). In fact I think we do not go far enough to make clear what the weapons used are best described as. I remember seeing later in the article it described as a "poor-man's AR-15" which is (aside from being generous to the qualities of the Ruger) still euphemistic and obscure. AR-15 is the original ad still used name of the US military's M16. M16 is just their label for it by their naming conventions. My first government-issue M16 was prominently marked "Colt AR-15". It was fully automatic. I have also owned a Colt "AR-15A2" that was semi-automatic only. Also that the name of the Mini-14, its appearance and operation mimic the military's M14 which was a larger caliber (.308 or 7.62mm) and fully automatic (select fire anyway) contribute to both the description of this as a "carbine" (small rifle) and the need to make clear that these guns being mentioned come in many varieties and under different names and may be semi-auto, three-short-burst, or fully automatic but all clearly serve the same basic function. Why euphemise or obscure this? Mini-14s are commonly used by prison guards (due to cost). Obviously this type of weapon is designed for the shooting of persons. Glock pistols are extremely popular with police. Police don't use them for shotting bottles in their back yards. Spades are spades. Carbines are carbines (which is just a description of diminutive size). This is a military-style weapon with high capacity magazines using a cartidge developed explicitly for miltary use. Obscuring the truth doesn't serve anyone. Obotlig (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity

Some early media reports suggested he could be charged with crimes against humanity, but this is not the case[14], also today the psychiatrists found he is a paranoid schizofrenic[15]. Lukademi-demi (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The article you refer to does not outright say that the charges can't be changed to crimes against humanity. It just speculates that it is highly unlikely he would be convicted for any such charges (based on the (in)ability to define ~650 persons on the island as a civilian population). Thus they probably will not change the charges from the current terrorism ones.

The main part of the article is actually about the inability to make the whole new criminal law agreed to in the Storting in 2009 take effect because of trouble with the current IT systems' ability to handle the changes. If those new laws were in effect from the time they were agreed upon (and thus at the time of the attacks) then the max prison time would have been 30 years and not 21 years for the exact same terrorism charges.

But if the current insanity verdict remains in effect after it has been reviewed then that doesn't really matter anyway. Unless the Norwegian Supreme Court's ruling that allows for insane people that has been sentenced to compulsory mental health care and eventually is deemed sane can be moved to prison if they are still considered a danger to the society. [16] -Laniala (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Financial information

The information on Behring Breivik's financials seems to rely a lot on what he claims himself in his manifesto. As mentioned in the article, a lot of this does not add up with income tax certificates and what the police investigation has revealed. His funds appear to have been smaller than what he say himself. New information has leaked from the police as well, such as Breivik possibly running an online diploma scam. I propose that all information on Breivik's financials that are not verified by tax certificates or reliable sources be removed from the article, as it is very unclear at this time how he earned money during the years leading up to the attacks. Charlie 14:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Premature unverified 3rd hand opinions vs known facts

The claim in the first paragraph that the gentleman is insane comes from Norwegian highly biased sources and has not been verified. It should be removed, the second paragraph provides sufficient info about the libel and it's origins.

Also, much of the infomation seems to be parroted from highly unreliable Norwegian newspaper articles which again just parrot the 2 Norwegian psychiatrist and each other, hardly independent sources as a casual reading of the article could lead people to believe.

The psych conclusions are already controversial and have at least in part become a political issue: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Foslobomben%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10016487

In conclusion, I think the article needs to be rewritten so that it clearly seperates between known facts and claims ultimately coming from questionable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.52.9 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe your concern is addressed in the section Psychiatric evaluation. It qotes/references the psychiatrists's report itself, which I assume will count as a 1st hand source. Charlie 15:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Wikipedia does not care about "facts," it only summarizes what are generally regarded as reliable sources by significant portions of the population. Nationwide and professional newspapers tend to fit that decsription. The psychiatrists report would also fit that description, unless reliable sources demonstrating that the psychiatrist is wrong and/or not really a psychiatrist can be brought forward. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The psychiatrist report is a rather significant document since it was written by two court-appointed professionals, such reports form a major basis for a court's ruling on whether a defendant can be punished with imprisonment, or if he must be placed in a psychiatric treatment facility. With that said, the report has generated a great deal of controversy in Norway, and some other psychiatrists have claimed that there are weaknesses in the report. Per Sandberg, leader of the parliament's justice committee has demanded a new report (in turn, people have been criticizing him for interfering in the judicial process). A related controversy is whether Norway's insanity defense law needs reform. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove this section?

"It regards Islam and cultural Marxism as the enemy, and argues for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism, and the deportation of all Muslims from Europe (culminating in the year 2083) to preserve European Christendom."

I dont think this line fits in at the top of the page, but should be moved further down, to the "Religius and political views" section. --195.0.176.100 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And Breivik thought a bunch of teenagers at a summer camp should have 5.56mm ammo put into them for being interested in the political party he blamed for "Eurabia". Opinions are great. That text is at the top of the page for good reason. Obotlig (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"wearing a compression garment "

The article does not say whether he is wearing the compression garment over his head, or on the top of his head, or on his legs.--Riambrid (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a wet suit, neck to ankles and wrists. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested semiprotection

I've requested that this article be semiprotected for a period of a couple of weeks, due to the prevalence of IP and SPA accounts vandalizing it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Declined. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede: December 2011

Regarding the edits by Asarlaí and Roscelese:

• As discussed above, the qualification as paranoid schizophrenic in the lede is appropriate since Breivik is known as such. The diagnosis is made by health care professionals, and has so far not been withdrawn or overruled.
• Breivik regards himself as a member/Justicular Knight of the knights templar, not a "templar-like organisation" as you phrased it.
• The source states "Expulsion of Muslims from Europe", why did you edit it to "Expulsion of muslims"?
• "Organise" is a valid spelling of the word

In case anyone else want to look, here is the diff in question. -- Heptor _talk 18:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• As alredy explaind by myself and Roscelese, Breivik isn't (in)famous for being a paranoid schizophrenic; he's (in)famous for perpetrating the 2011 attacks. That's the reason he has a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, his paranoid schizophrenia is alredy noted in the second paragraf. If we include "paranoid schizophrenic" in the very first line we may as well include "self-employed businessman, graduate of Oslo Commerce School, Christian, Freemason..."
• If you re-check my edit, you'll see that I was the one who changed "deportation of all muslims" to "deportation of all Muslims from Europe". You (maybe unknowingly) revertd it back to "deportation of all muslims".
• Lastly, the third paragraf was grammatically wrong. It said that his manifesto "includes support for varying degrees of cultural conservatism, ultranationalism, right-wing populism, Islamophobia, Zionism, anti-feminism, white nationalism and paramilitaries such as the Scorpions". The bit in italics should be in a new sentence, as it makes no sense to say "support for varying degrees of the Scorpions".

~Asarlaí 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading WP:lede I think you are right on "schizophrenic" in the lede. The Wikipedia term for "famous/infamous" as you mention is "notable". In the Wikipedia context it is defined as "received significant coverage from independent sources". According to WP:lede, for subjects which are notable for only one reason the first sentence should give the reason for notability. So the first sentence should state the reason why Breivik received coverage in the media. Obviously he would have received the coverage regardless of his diagnosis.

Following the same principle, the question of Breivik being a terrorist or not is also not the reason for media coverage. So if this is a correct interpretation of the policy, the first sentence in the lede should be "Anders Behring Breivik (East Norwegian pronunciation[...]) is the confessed perpetrator of the 22 July 2011 attacks in Norway.", which does what it should do according to wp:lede and nothing more. Please comment. -- Heptor _talk 02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What should we mention about the conflicting views on the psychiatric evaluations?

Ever since the two court-appointed psychiatrists submitted their findings that Breivik is paranoid schizofrenic, depressed and lacks basic ADL skills there has been a heated debate among Norwegian (as well as some foreign) mental health experts about the correctness of this assessment. The heat got knocked up still a few notches when, a couple of days ago, TV 2 broke the news that the psychiatric treatment professionals at Ila Prison who had monitored him intensely had found no signs of mental illness or health risk. I want to have this presented differently, and using other references, than does CharlieFourTwo, so I'd like some more opinions on which way to direct this.

My version was this:

• ...whereas the medical staff in charge of treating prisoners at Ila Prison did not make any observation that suggested he suffered from either psychosis, depression or was suicidal. The prison medical staff comprised of one psychiatrist, three psychologists and psychiatric nurses had made over 80 examinations and observations during a three-month period starting July 26.

CharlieFourTwo wants this rather:

• ...whereas the interdisciplinary medical staff in charge of treating prisoners at Ila Prison did not make any observation that suggested he suffered from either psychosis, depression or was suicidal. Rather he appeared to have personality disorders, according to senior psychiatrist Randi Rosenquist.

First, I don't find interdisciplinary an appropriate term here, but rather misleading to suggest they are something less than mental health specialists.

Second, I don't think psychiatrist Randi Rosenquist should be mentioned by name. She was called in by the prison to assess the safety regime and prison conditions, and she only met with Breivik on two occasions, and perhaps we could phrase this as "A psychiatrist called in by the prison to assess the safety regime and prison conditions.."?

And third, the voluminous nature of the observations made by the prison's own medical staff should be clearly stated.

I think the danger we're getting into by being too brief and short on details here, is that the reader is not going to get an adequate understanding (per our mandate, that is). I'd like some other editors to weigh in with their views on this issue. __meco (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to meco:

* Interdisciplinary is my substitution for "one psychiatrist, three psychologists and psychiatric nurses". The word is commonly used in Norwegian health care to describe a system where different professions collaborate in the treatment of patients. My reason for shortening this sentence was primarily to present the Ila and Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine in a similar manner. The reviewers are simply called an "extended panel" rather than "seven forensic specialists instead of the usual 2-3 member panel", and to me your phrasing appeared argumentative (which may very well not have been your intention).

* Opinion of Dr. Rosenquist. I'm inclined to agree with you, and I think your phrasing is more informative as well.

* Volume of observations. The Ila medical team has monitorered Breivik extensively, but the psych eval was pretty thorough as well (the most extensive in the history of NBFM). The forensic specialists interviewed Breivik for 36 hours and had access to family members and a vast police material (transcripts from interrogations, tech evidence etc), which the Ila team did not. Anyway, I think this discussion is better kept out of the article and that it is sufficient to present the views of both sides, rather than arguing who has done the most work.

Charlie (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To Interdisciplinary, we're both Norwegians, but I'm a registered nurse (no, not trying to pull rank) and when this term is used in the health service the span of professions involved is significantly wider than here, e.g. social workers, physical therapists. With no further detail this term is likely to give the reader the impression that we're not referencing a team of psyciatric health care workers. In addition to this the media's description of this particular team at Ila Prison has emphasized their high professional qualifications and experience. __meco (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Better skip the word altogether, then. Medical staff or "psychiatric staff" adequately explains what kind of professionals we're talking about anyway. Regarding professionalism: The qualifications of both the forensic experts, as well as the Ila staff, have been emphasised in Norwegian media and by parties in the court case. To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen or heard anyone (seriously) question the qualifications of either side. The debate has been over methods, interpretations, findings and differential diagnosis asf. Charlie (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I exchanged interdisciplinary with psychiatric. __meco (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Abb politibilder mo 941995i.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abb politibilder mo 941995i.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 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) 23:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Parents listed on the left as a fact?

Should his parents names be listed as a fact, is it not enough to address his parents in the writings about his early life? - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.58.179 (talk) 12:21, February 16, 2012‎ (UTC)

If by left, you mean right, i.e. the infobox, the parents field is one of the defined fields of {{Infobox mass murderer}}, so I'm sure there has been some consideration of naming the parents of such people in the infobox prior to it appearing on this article. Their names are prominently referred to in the article body, and I can see no particular reason why it wouldn't be similarly appropriate to have them mentioned in the infobox. If you have some reason for your qualm about this, present your case and we'll discuss it. __meco (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I must say I agree. At least at a first glance I can't see that listing the names of his biological parents in the infobox is that informative or relevant. It's not them the article is focused around. That their names is mentioned in the article text later I can kind of understand as the context and reasoning for mentioning them sort of makes it more natural. On the similar other language pages only a handful of them even mention the parents' names in the text itself, but then again, many of them are hardly more than a few sentences. Of the pages that use the same template a quick glance found 3-4 articles that have mentioned the parents' names [17]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the infobox template has a 'parents' field is irrelevant. Field usage is optional, and must be justified on a case-by-case basis. I can see no reason whatsoever why the names of Breivik's parents need to be given such prominence, and would suggest that it may well violate WP:BLPNAME policy to do so, and have accordingly removed it. I reccommend that anyone replacing this reaches consensus to do so here first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am rather ambivalent to this. The parents are not of high importance, and I have no problem with removing them from the infobox (which should summarize the most important data in the context of the article's main focus). I disagree with the suggestion that including the names violates WP:BLPNAME, the names are well-known and have been widely disseminated in the media, and the father has given at least one interview on television [18]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - I was suggesting that having the names in the infobox was improper - we can validly name them in the article itself, as long as we don't give them undue prominence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Born in London, United Kingdom?

Why has the Persondata been saying for months that he was born in London, United Kingdom? The cited sources clearly say he was born in Oslo, Norway. Was this some vandalism that no one ever found out and corrected? JIP | Talk 20:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite likely not vandalism - there are sources saying he was born in London (his father worked there as a diplomat). Clearly wrong though, see Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik/Archive_3#Born_in_London_.5Bor_in_Oslo.3F.5D. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've already fixed the infobox, I was just verifying that what I did was right. Has the Persondata really been incorrectly saying he was born in London for almost seven months? For the record, the Finnish word syntyperäinen means "native", "born there". This was asked in the section you linked to but was not answered there. JIP | Talk 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it was in the template {{Persondata}}. According to WP:PERSON it is hidden from view for most users (me included), until you happen to edit the part of the article where the template is located (preference seem to be to place it at the bottom), which is probably why nobody have corrected it earlier. Not that it really matters now that you did so .

As for the birth location itself the reference in the infobox points to the morning edition of the newspaper Aftenposten on 15 Februray 1979, page 10, which you can find online here [19]. It's in the upper left corner, but unless you have a subscription or have a very big screen (it scales according to the browser size) then it is hardly more than unreadable scribblings. But it is written there under "Født" (births) and which hospital he was born in. -Laniala (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus to remove user's post from article talk page that violates WP:TPO

Closing Pandora's box
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is consensus and policy backing for removing talk page posts that discuss the subject in the manner of a forum post or merely voices the user's opinion about the subject or parts thereof. However, when there exists a focus on improving the article, e.g. when the post claims there are errors or biases in the article that needs to be corrected, removing such a post is inappropriate. And this is what is happening here currently. I urge the several users who are currently enforcing an unlawful interpretation of WP:TPO to cease in their activities or this matter will have to be reported to WP:ANI. __meco (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Quinacrine has raised this issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. __meco (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC) To me the only thing that had relevance and made some sense in that posted text by User Quinacrine was the last two sentences. «Before we call anyone a terrorist, we must agree what this word means. My favorite definition of terrorism is a definition proposed by Boaz Ganor: "Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends." ( source: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief004-26.htm )» Under which Breivik clearly would fit the definition. The rest was in my opinion just random allegations. -Laniala (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Well, that would seem to be sufficient to establish that the post was indeed aimed at improving the article. It could perhaps be considered striking out the earlier content, although I doubt even that would be appropriate. __meco (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Ian Thomson wrote it much better than me. And is it really worth to keep a post with that much random unsourced claims (soapbox and forum) that have no relevance to the subject, just to end up proving a point opposite of what was intended? Not to mention I would not be surprised if that terror definition by Boaz Ganor in itself is highly disputed. -Laniala (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Going through the post in question: Wikipedia is dominated by Muslims and their left-wing sympathizers. - False to the point of paranoia, and doesn't discuss article improvement. Almost all terrorists are Muslims, and yet Wikipedia does not call them terrorists. - False and ignorant on a variety of points. There are a number of groups which are Christianist, White-supremacist, or Marxist. Wikipedia does indeed call Al-Qaeda and the Taliban terrorist organizations. All this may be seen here. The articles on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban also mention their terrorist activities. Wikipedia calls Osama bin Laden "the founder of the militant Islamist organization." - It also mentions that he was on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list, and that he "designated as a terrorist by scholars," journalists (including journalists from Al Jazeera), analyists, and law enforcement agencies. The Wikipedia article about Carlos the Jackal begins with a statement that Israel is a terrorist nation, - Completely dishonest and incompetent misquoting, the article says that that was Carlos the Jackal's claimed belief. The article in no way endorses that view. but it does not call Carlos the Jackal a terrorist. - Except that it says that "the authoritative biography" is a book titled "Carlos: Portrait Of A Terrorist." He also kinda failed to accomplish much except for three murders, one of them being a Lebanese informer. Many Europeans believe that Islam will bring rivers of blood into European cities. - WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:We don't care about batshit people's opinions. They call Breivik a hero who fired the first shot in the civil war between Muslim invaders and indigenous Europeans. - Not sourced, and it would not improve the article to call Breivik a hero. The sooner the civil war begins, the better are the odds that the indigenous Europeans will win the war. - Again, WP:NOTFORUM and batshit. Nobody should be surprised by the fact that Breivik has millions of fans. - Not sourced, probably not true, WP:NOTFORUM. Many of our heroes are terrorists. Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat were terrorists killing civilians, and yet they received the Nobel Peace Prize. - Irrelevant, especially since Mandela and Arafat fought for equal representation, something Breivik does not want Muslims to have. In an Al-Jazeera survey on September 11, 2006, 49.9% of the respondents avowed that they did indeed support Osama bin Laden. ( source: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28733 ). - Not relevant to the article, and Mark Tessler's "The Origin of Popular Support for Islamist Movements: A Political Economy Analysis" provides plenty of evidence that the "support" has nothing to do with agreeing with Islamist movements but because they're the only alternative to the local regimes. Hardly "support." Before we call anyone a terrorist, we must agree what this word means. My favorite definition of terrorism is a definition proposed by Boaz Ganor: "Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends." ( source: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief004-26.htm ) - This is the only thing that begins to be relevant to the article. And it's pointless because the article already calls Breivik a terrorist. I mean, he fits that definition. Given all the sheer insanity and bollocks that dominated the paragraph, and the absolute pointlessness of the one thing that had anything to do with the article, was there any reason not to remove the rant? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Quinacrine wrote: "They call Breivik a hero who fired the first shot in the civil war between Muslim invaders and indigenous Europeans." Ian Thomson wrote: "Not sourced." Ali Goma is the grand mufti of Egypt (highest Muslim authority in the world). He said: "Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam." ( sources: Al Ahram, April 7, 2008, www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8066 ) Daniel Pipes is a well known Islamic expert. He said that the odds that "immigrant Muslims and indigenous Europeans find a way to live in harmony" are only five percent. ( source: http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YTg3ZTAxYzQxZmIxZTcxN2NhMjNiYzI0NWM2NjMxYmY= ) "In a poll taken for the Davos World Economic Forum, stunning numbers of Europeans fear a threat from Muslims with whom they interact: 79 percent of Danes, 67 percent of Italians, 68 percent of Spaniards, 65 percent of Swedes and 59 percent of Belgians." ( source: www.jewishworldreview.com/0408/blankley042308.php3 ) European 'No-Go' Zones for Non-Muslims: www.hudson-ny.org/2367/european-muslim-no-go-zones Quinacrine (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Ian Thomson wrote: "Wikipedia does indeed call Al-Qaeda and the Taliban terrorist organizations. " It does not. Wikipedia calls al-Qaeda "a global broad-based militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden. Wikipedia calls Taliban "an Islamist militant and political group that ruled large parts of Afghanistan." These articles say that some countries designated al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization and that Taliban have been accused of using terrorism. The Wikipedia articles imply that these accusations may be untrue. The pro-Muslim and anti-Israel bias is very prominent in Wikipedia articles about Christian minorities living in the Middle East. These minorities flee the Middle East because they are severely abused by the Muslim majority. You can find tons of info about this abuse on the Internet except Wikipedia (Personal attack removed).Quinacrine (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC) The articles point out that those groups are labelled as terrorists organization and categorical them as such. Only a lunatic could read the articles as implying those groups are not terrorist. 70.12.160.46 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC) The JCPA source isn't relevant either. It doesn't matter what he thinks of that definition or whether he thinks it does or doesn't fit Breivik. Nobody cares. He isn't an RS. There's nothing in the comment relevant to this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) ::That "one thing that had anything to do with the article" is often a highly contested issue on many talk pages of articles discussing controversial subjects. Should the word criminal be present in the lede paragraph? Should the organization be characterized as "far right" or "extremist"? It should suffice to point to the current project-wide discussion related to the naming of abortion-related articles to attest to the importance of minutiae of wording when it comes to offensive characterizations of groups, individuals or causes. __meco (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) The issue of whether or not we should include the term terrorist or criminal or whatever in the article is an honest issue. An issue that was not brought up in the contested post: The article says "terrorist" The source that Quinacrine cited says "terrorist" Therefore, no change was suggested, which means no improvement was suggested. If you wish to suggest removing the word "terrorist" or adding the word "criminal," I don't mind, but Quinacrine's post wasn't about that, it was nothing but a far-right paranoid rant. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I suggested the same treatment of all terrorists. If we call Breivik a terrorist, we should use the same label when we describe Muslim terrorists. At present, there is a trend in Wikipedia articles to avoid the terrorist label. Calling my post a "far-right paranoid rant" is unfair because I have always been a moderate left-winger. When I discussed Breivik on many Internet forums, I was surprised to find that as many posters called him a hero as a villain. I included these views in my post to demonstrate that Breivik, (like bin Laden) has many fans. By the way, Joseph Stalin has many fans in Russia. The leaders of the French Revolution were blood-thirsty tyrants, and yet the French people celebrate them on the Bastille Day... There are many terrorist heroes...Quinacrine (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC) If that was your point you certainly had a peculiar way of expressing it. First, if you want the articles about other persons to include the word terrorist you should discuss that in those other articles. Not this one. And I would suggest keeping more to the actual point and less text of what might for some be considered as nonsense rambling. Second, if you read forums where Breivik has "millions" of fans, I think you are reading different forums than most of us. -Laniala (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I would be interested in knowing about some of those forums, because I have searched for them. Both the EDL and the NDL revile Breivik, and even a place such as the anti-Muslim Gates of Vienna website will not speak openly in favor of Breivik, to my knowledge. Also Stormfront censors all mention of Breivik. So I'm really wondering what places do in fact openly embrace him? __meco (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC) I have seen lots of praise for Breivik in YouTube comments. I do not remember the names of other websites, but I remember that when someone praised Breivik, his post was instantly deleted by the moderators. Daniel Pipes (see my comment above) believes that civil war between Muslim immigrants and indigenous Europeans is almost certain. Suppose that Pipes is right. How should we deal with this problem? Breivik and his fans believe that the best course of action is starting the civil war now. I believe that the best course of action is explaing the true nature of Islam to the ignorant Europeans. Unfortunately, prominent Europeans (Geert Wilders, Oriana Fallaci, Brigitte Bardot, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Susanne Winter, Lars Hedegaard, Jesper Langballe, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, Michel Houellebecq, and Gregorius Nekschot) were hauled before European courts for telling the truth about Islam. My TED account was deleted because I posted well sourced facts about Islam. If we cannot have public debates about Islam, we must admit that Breivik is a hero. "The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization" - Sam Harris (He is U.S. liberal and atheist.) Quinacrine (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC) So, no sources for anything then? None of that has any relevance whatsoever to this article: take your soapbox elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC) http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2734/criminalize-free-speech Quinacrine (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Would it perhaps be an idea to put this whole subsection in under {{hat}} and {{hab}} (with reference to for example WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM and whatever else that applies) ? -Laniala (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Given that Quinacrine is now dumping irrelevant links to far-right-lunatic websites here, yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Erm, Quinacrine - has it occurred to you that "explaining the true nature of Islam" to Europeans by the route of apparently supporting Breivik's shooting of innocent Christian Norwegian kids is quite possibly the very worst possible job of salesmanship attempted in the history of the world? Wnt (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC) I suppose I should have written different kinds of forums (different types of subjects). Because if that was asked to me then I have yet to see any forums that adore Breivik, and certainly not any places where he has millions of fans. I might just be visiting the wrong sites, but I suspect it was just a huge exaggeration and another baseless claim to be added along with most of the others. -Laniala (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is he not called "Christian terrorist"?

I think the fact that every little nuthead with a Muslim/Jewish background is called Islamist, extreme Zionist, etc., but Breivik is not mentioned as a CHRISTIAN terrorist or at least categorised as such is not only pretentious and phony, but typical of Western, white people, who have always been comfortable calling "them" terrorists, but "us" freedom-fighters or - in the present case - psychologically unstable blablabla. There are a number of reasons to include the term "Christian", let me list two:

1. Breivik's manifesto clearly shows that he is an informed Christian, who furthermore categorises the world according to (although not solely) religious denominations. Everyone who has really read his manifesto cannot deny that he justifies a great deal of his motivation with Christianity. It is obvious as daylight.

2. So, you guys are surprised that he is called "mentally unstable" and even think about changing the "terrorist" label? Well, lemme tell ya somethin', folks: terrorists in general could be categorised as mentally unstable, psychotic, etc., if you really think about it. Do you think, ceteris paribus, that the court in Norway would not call Bin Laden "mentally unstable"? (Or Hitler for that matter?) Of course they would! (But only if in our example, Bin Laden was white and European/American, for we all know that if you're a Muslim (or Jew in the past), i.e. a "darkie", it's your culture, your breed, you dirty terrorist mf you, but if you're a white Christian, you simply must be mentally ill, for it is impossible that a white Christian European would kill other Europeans! Of course, to kill hundreds of thousands darkies by just bombing them is okay...).

So, you may not like me or my style or the way I don't like you guys, but you cannot deny that my arguments are sound and the things that I pointed out above are valid objections that need to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.45.172 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Find a source that calls him a Christian terrorist, add it and we're done. Because without a source, it would count as "original research", even if it's obvious. Weird but true. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed in length before. [20][21][22][23][24] He considered himself a Christian (this has been discussed in length), and plenty of reliable sources describe him as a terrorist (this has been discussed in length too). I think however one of the points in the previous discussions is that he can be both a Christian and a terrorist separately, without being a "Christian terrorist" as a combined word. So as Mythic Writerlord wrote just above, if you can't find reliable sources that describe him has a "Christian terrorist" somebody that disagree to either of those words being used, is probably going to revert it at some point or another. -Laniala (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean, it's not like there aren't sources. Terrorism expert Juergensmeyer among others. It's even cited in the article already. The question isn't "are there sources." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTiC)

So there are sources so why is Breivik not described as a Christian terrorist in this article then? Could it be that Christian editors are the ones who keep reverting it using the BS "no true Scotsman" argument of Christianity and terrorism being incompatible? If we allow this logic next thing you know, someone will remove the Islamic terrorist description from Bin Laden's page with exactly the same arguments. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Breivik isnt religios, he calls himself aCultural Christian, Richard Dawkins calls himself Cultural Christian too, you can be it without to be faithful. So he cant be an Fundamentalist. I think his only a singular offender.--95.114.55.221 (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's absurd to say that he does not claim to be a Christian and and act like a terrorist, given the crusader imagery etc. Since we have WP:RS for "Christian terrorist", I would suggest the editors who care keep inserting that category and adding it to the description in the lead and ask for arbitration if... other nutjobs editors are determined for this obvious and referenced label to be removed from the article. I don't care enough, even if it the right thing to do. Obotlig (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention it?

When Breivik in December 2009 called for a Norwegian version of the English Defence League, he argued the need to counter left-wing radical groups like Blitz and SOS Rasisme that were "harassing" Norwegian cultural conservatives. Last week it was revealed that SOS Rasisme had in fact infiltrated the leadership of the NDL to the extent that it controlled the organization from its inception through March 2011 (See Norwegian Defence League#Leadership controlled by anti-racism activists). Is some mention of this latest development warranted in the present article? __meco (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a connection mentioned in reliable sources? In my view, they don't appear to be related at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean that mentioning in this article that the NDL was in fact infiltrated by SOS Rasisme would be a breach of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH? __meco (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

More that I just don't see the relevance of it in this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree - not relevant. In any case, it seems to be assertion, rather than fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons with Merah

A few newspaper features comparing the two killers Breivik and Mohammed Merah[25][26] (also) and positing them as polar opposites in an emerging violent conflict between Muslim immigrants and ethnic Europeans struggling to preserve their cultural identity might be worth integrating into this and other related articles. __meco (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"polar opposites in an emerging violent conflict between Muslim immigrants and ethnic Europeans struggling to preserve their cultural identity"? What? Can you cite a source that is saying that - none of the ones you give do - though I'd hardly describe any of them as mainstream. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, here's one more extrapolating the two killers. __meco (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was this changed?

We had 3 pictures of him in 3 different outfits; why had this been changed? It seems that many criminals do not have their faces on wikipedia. Is this always the case?140.198.45.72 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it was mostly to do with copyright issues, though there isn't really much need for multiple pictures, and the ones of him posing in uniforms etc weren't exactly ideal: we shouldn't be projecting his self-image as some sort of 'soldier'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's because of copyright issues. And I agree with the above, we shouldn't continue with the self-promoting of Breivik as soldier, especially when he never served a single day in the military. The general deletion argument was that Facebook pictures generally are not free (as defined by Commons - which requires the picture to be able to be used commercially and be able to be modified in any way you like), and these Facebook pictures were also probably taken by a professional photographer. The license Breivik used on the compendium and the pictures in it is dubious and unclear, as it allows you to distribute only if you are a European. Breivik specifically mentions modification of only certain chunks of text, he does not mention you are allowed to modify (his) pictures. And to top it off, Breivik are not allowed to give away permissions on material he himself does not own (like the professionally taken Facebook pictures). Majority of the text and pictures in the compendium are copied and pasted from other authors, and Breivik himself notes he did not have permission to use their material. So in a nutshell copyright violation is why all his pictures were deleted. You can find the deletion discussions here [27]. A couple of people have tried to get them undeleted but all have failed.

Anyway, on a general note it is difficult to take a picture with a free license that is accepted on Commons when the person/criminal is either in jail for a very long time, or killed himself in the very same action that made him "famous".

When it comes to Breivik you have a very minor chance at taking a picture of him when he is being transported from the jail to the court room. If you have a press accreditation you also have a chance to take a picture in the minutes before and after the court trial as long as Breivik himself allows you to do it, which he first allowed on his last remand hearing a month or so ago. (Norwegian law prohibits taking pictures (and sound/video recordings) of an accused person while inside the court building as long as he/she does not agree to it before the court trial starts.) So far every picture taken of him is by professional photographers that do it for a living and/or are hired by commercial newspapers/broadcasters. -Laniala (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 'Psychiatric evaluation' references

User User:Kiwi128 (talk) added template Ref improve section (section needs additional cites for verification). I fail to see what information isn't properly referenced, perhaps someone else can advice? Charlie (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph is completely unsourced. Silverseren^C 08:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually not. The information originates from the forensic expert report, which is referenced in the 1st paragraph (currently ref. No. 69). Perhaps this ref. should be added to the 2nd paragraph too? Charlie (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You can't just make the readers assume that the forensic report applies to this paragraph. Most likely, they're going to assume the same thing I did, that it's not referenced. Silverseren^C 09:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for helping, Silver. Charlie (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it is relevant, but the tabloid newspaper Verdens Gang released almost the whole psychiatric evaluations, just censoring out vitness' names and some family information: [28] (the text is in Norwegian) -Laniala (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is an excellent and reliable article based on Norwegian sources that coulld be used: http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/a-pre-trial-profile-of-anders-behring-breivik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.126.242 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevant text should be merged into the trial article

With the newly created Trial of Anders Behring Breivik article, relevant text from the "Arrest and preparations for trial" section as well as its subsection "Psychiatric evaluation", should be merged into this article, leaving brief summaries in the present article. __meco (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Useful publications on ABB:

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/a-pre-trial-profile-of-anders-behring-breivik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.126.242 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not a scientific publication. I don't immediately see that this is useful for the present article. __meco (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC) (Section header has been changed, removing the word scientific. __meco (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC))

Breivik was a wikipedian

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/breivik-tros-ligga-bakom-artiklar-i-norska-wikipedia

I don´t know if this have been mentioned before, but according to this swedish article, Breivik (may have) edited norweigian Wikipedia, and mentioned Wikipedia in his manifesto ("Wikipedia should not be underestimated as the primary source to create "established truths"", my translation). Probably not worth mentioning in the article, but the source is RS, and it´s interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not go directly to the source to get a better idea what the interview was actually about? http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/rogaland/1.8045907 Swedish and Norwegian are not that different. -Laniala (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, this interview is also discussed on the no-wiki [29] and [30]. -Laniala (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made a note about this in the article. __meco (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just goes to show that nutters edit Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.7.227 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Weapons Used: Include Benelli Shotgun.

I believe the article and/or the upper right-hand side box (the background information) should include the fact that he had with him (in his vehicle) a Benelli shotgun. He did not use the shotgun on the island, but seeing as how it was a part of his arsenal, I believe it is of note. I do not believe I can add this information, seeing as how the article is locked. LogicalCreator (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Influence of Wikipedia section

Breivik has just testified that Wikipdia was the greatest influence on the development of his ideology and I think its important that Wikipedia acknowledges its role. Unfortunately there is a policy WP:SELF that tends to prevent that kind of acknowledgement. Can I ask that on least this occasion its role is adequately archived?

There should also be a section on Breivik's game playing. It emerged yesterday that he spent a whole year playing the game World of Warcraft and that would certainly seem to suggest he was addicted. It's rather similar in many ways with Wikipedia. There are editors who have made 100,000 edits or more. I don't want to encourage original research, but are there any RS out there addressing whether Breivik had an account with Wikipedia and what he posted? That would be also need to be acknowledged I think. JCMullen (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have mention of Breivik's connection to Wikipedia and its importance in his view. If he has elaborated on this in the trial, I'm sure something can be added to the existing text with adequate sourcing. If the name of his account should emerge I hope someone will notify an administrator asap so it can be locked down to prevent vandalism. __meco (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that. Apologies. I didn't notice, though I did know the content. However what's emerged today, if I understand the news reports correctly, is that Breivik has now said that it was Wikipedia itself that was the most important influence on forming his ideology, not just merely propagating it. As soon as there are good secondary sources, that should be included in the article.

I had a look at the link you gave but it wasn't very informative. If Breivik's account has been identified, why hasn't that been dissected? I mean it could be locked down but it should still be available for discussion. I would especially like to see how his contributions were received by the community. If they were extreme for example were they ever blocked? That would be interesting. JCMullen (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the leadership cabal of the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia as decided to withhold the user name of Breivik. __meco (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is already a small mention of this in a section above Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Breivik was a wikipedian. That section was regarding an interview that one of the Norwegian Wikimedia people had, and it can be found (in Norwegian)here. The contents did create a discussion on no-Torget (a variant of the Village pump) [31] and [32]. Beyond what was mentioned in the interview I think maybe you have to ask on the Norwegian WP if anyone are able and/or willing to give more information.

If it is about what Breivik actually read, he did mention mostly religion articles on en-WP, asided from paper and electronic books, but he couldn't or wouldn't specify more specifically when the prosecutor asked him to mention the titles of some of what he read.

As for Breivik's WoW gaming I don't know more than was mentioned on the first day in court, which wasn't much. :) -Laniala (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Off topic accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The point I was moving to was that in fact Wikipedia in fact has taken on some of the characteristics of a gaming community. One of its most powerful administrators, MuZemike, a shadowy anoymous figure entrusted with check sum rights giving him arguably more direct power than the CIA in his ability to invade our privacy, is known to have just such a backgound. There are others. MuZemike himself is clearly an addict. I doubt he sleeps properly. To give you a directly topical example of the sort of thing he does, MuZemike has just blocked the proxy in Russia I was posting from (I have to be extremely careful where I post from), some hassle with another user it seems. I have to post this now from a proxy in Romania and I don't doubt that if I return, that will be blocked too. I do hope all this gets properly debated eventually. I shall look for the secondary sources we need. JCMullen (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC) This is interesting information, but I find it problematic for several reasons. First, you are presenting accusations about a Wikipedian whom I am not acquainted with and in a tone that may be inappropriate, including ad hominem content. Then you are presenting it on a page that is definitely not the right place to discuss improprieties among Wikipedia stewards or other trusted Wikipedians. I have close to 40,000 edits on this Wikipedia but I have no idea what "check sum rights" entail. I'm immediately at a loss about where would be the best place on this Wikipedia to address such issues. As for externally, I would think the Wikipedia Review or some such site might be able to advise you on how best to proceed with this. __meco (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Hi Meco. Romania still good ;). That thing a few trusted admins do to find your IP and editing patterns and cast you into the eternal fires. Can't be bothered to look up what it's called. Of course you're being disingenuous to claim you don't what I'm talking about. That's not a personal attack, an accusation or anything else then a rhetorical device to counter the one you just employed (can't be bothered to look those up either). Some guy who styles himself SpringtimeForHitler88 (don't count on it being vacant) posts suggesting uncle Adolf was a kindly old geezer who was basically misunderstood, Paris68 (ditto) denounces him, following thereupon you can be quite sure there will be a dozen wikipedians with 40,000 edits plus and counting defending 88. That's basically the problem we are talking here. However I shall cease and desist. Nothing here. Best. JCMullen (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please feel free to add it. Pessimist2006 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He also said he was influenced by serbian nationalists. This should also be mentioned. --212.144.20.132 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Can he still be called a terrorist?

YES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.113.176 (talk) 20:35‎, 17. April 2012 (UTC)

The article's lead sentence introduces Breivik as a terrorist, which was an entirely reasonable label to apply to him after the attacks. However, the court psychiatrists have now ruled that Breivik suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time of the attacks. Is the label "terrorist" still appropriate? It seems to me that the carrying out of the attacks are a symptom of Breivik's mental illness, whereas terrorism indicates something that is done "for a religious, political or ideological goal" according to our own Terrorism article, which we cannot now say. The bombing and shooting attacks are still terrorist acts, but describing Breivik as a terrorist seems wrong when the main backround is mental illness. Theis101 (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'll removing it. -- Heptor _talk 14:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of his mental state, he could still be a terrorist. What if Osama bin Laden turned out to be mentally unstable, would that mean he can no longer be labeled a terrorist? What Breivik did can be described as act of terror, done to wage a civil war in which he would be the leader of Norway (or something similar). Very delusional and weird, but that doesn't make him any less a terrorist. Besides, @Theis01, isn't this "original research" or did you actually find an article that says "now that Breivik has been declared insane he is no longer labeled a terrorist"? I say it should be placed back untill a concensus is reach (and consencus is not two editors). :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, mental and physical health is irrelevant to status as terrorist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

He might be a paranoid schizophrenic who committed a terrorist attack. The question is what description or category will best help the user? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That he is a terrorist, who just happens to be a paranoid schizophrenic on the side. He wouldn't be alone in that, since carrying out such horrendous acts requires quite some sociopathic tendencies a normal, sane individual would lack. Remorse and empathy would keep normal people from being terrorists, I believe. Not that it matters what I believe, the fact remains he is both a paranoid schizophrenic and a man responsible for committing acts of terror.

In any case, his mental history does not have to in the lead, it has it's own section already. Of course it can be a category, same as the terrorism which can also be put in a category. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's start naming sane terrorists... I'm not just talking about political groups labeled terrorists by their enemies, but people that neutral observers have to say "yep, that's a terrorist." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We would need a source saying that because he was judged legally insane he is not considered a terrorist. TFD (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason to assume that being insane and being a terrorist are mutually incompatible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think even if we found such a source, that would only belong in the section about his trial or insanity, and the description as terrorist would still be appropriate in the lede. He's still regarded as a terrorist outside the Norwegian legal system (if they somehow have decided he wasn't a terrorist when they found he was unfit to stand trial), and is notable for being known as a terrorist. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Writelord, TFD: now that Breivik was declared mentally ill, he can no longer be convicted of any crime, including terrorism. Of course, terrorism does not have a precise legal definition, but I think the principle should be applied by analogy.

It would be nice if only mentally disturbed people living in a confused reality were capable of killing other people. As it happens, mentally sane people kill for a variety of reasons, such as money, power or religious promise. Terrorism is promotion of a political agenda, which is not insane in the clinical sense. In case of Breivik, his paranoid delusions were the key factor and the motivation for his actions.-- Heptor _talk 17:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

But "commited actions which have been called terrorism by the international community" and "legally convicted as a terrorist in one nation's courts" are different things. His paranoid delusions shaped the political agenda which he killed for, his paranoid delusions lead him to commit terrorist acts. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@Heptor: It doesn't matter whether or not he can be prosecuted for it. You just call the beast by it's name. Say Hitler would be trialed at Nuremburg and declared mentally ill, should we then write he wasn't a dictator? What Breivik did can be accurately described as the actions of a terrorist. Thus, as a result, his actions can be described as acts of terrorism. He could be deaf, blind, autistic, borderline retarded, diagnosed with down syndrome for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that he is a terrorist. Norwegian law may say he cannot be prosecuted for what he did, instead committing him to an asylum for the insane, but show me where Norwegian law states that Breivik cannot be labeled as a terrorist. Whatever lead him to commit these acts, he did commit them nonetheless and this makes him a terrorist no matter what his mental or physical condition would be. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right Mythic Writerlord. Insane or not, ABB will still be put on trial for violating Norwegian terror laws. Numerous sources have made a point of this, including the prosecutor at the Oslo district court press conference, who announced the report. The trial will proceed as usual. The only difference will lie in the sentencing: that ABB will be sentenced to compulsory treatment/confinement in a mental institution instead of prison (if found guilty of the terrorist attacks and if found insane). Charlie 19:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yup. Basically, what everyone else has said: A, that the two are not mutually exclusive and B, that we go by what reliable sources have called him rather than by our own opinions that a mentally ill person cannot be a terrorist. "Terrorist" also needs to retain its original weight in the lead, because again, he is not less a terrorist for being mentally ill, and the mental illness is not why he is notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentally sick persons are of course not excluded from joining terrorist organisations, it's just that Breivik wasn't part of any - except those he imagined. Also, Breivik is on trial for murder, not terrorism. It was briefly considered to prosecute him by the so-called "terrorism paragraph", which applies to acts that "seriously disturb a basic function of the society [...][or] create a significant distress in the society [...]". This charge was however dropped, he is on trial "only" for murder, not terror. -- Heptor _talk 19:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

But, it's probably OK to leave the article either way, follow the external debate and see what comes out of it. -- Heptor _talk 19:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever said that a person had to be a member of an organization in order to be a terrorist? And again, it's about reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, to sum up the arguments for removing the terrorist label:

• There is a "terrorism paragraph" in the Norwegian law, and Breivik is not charged with it.
• The acts were committed due to paranoid delusion, not an actual political purpose.
• The Norwegian press usually labels him as mass murderer, not terrorist.
• He was not a member of any terrorist organisation.
• The references calling him "terrorist" are from before it was known that he suffered from schizophrenia.

-- Heptor _talk 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Anders Behring breivik is charged with violating paragraph 147a in the Norwegian criminal code, which is the so-called "terrorism paragraph".

http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-018.html#147a

Comment: Defining ABB as a terrorist or a delusional is a matter of debate. Should he be convicted for violating paragraph 147a, the court will in effect rule that he is a terrorist. Also, we should keep in mind that he can be both. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. His views cannot be entirely disregarded as "crazy man's ranting". Conspiracy theories; yes - delusional in itself; hardly.

Charlie 12:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You all raise some good issues. As to the narrators neutral tone we must establish this between ourselves, based on reliable sources, logic, our understanding of language, etc. My preference would be fo an all-inclusive label something like: "the self-proclaimed perpetrator of [the mass murders] to serve extreme-right political, nationalitic social, and Christian religious goals, who has been found to have been influenced by paranoid-delusional thinking due to schizophrenia." Terrorism seems to fit in there somewhere. Does anyone question that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist? And he had no manifesto; we understand his intent implicitly and through second hand sources and (reasonable) conjecture. Per reliable sources. "Terroist" vs. "mass murderer" seems to be a trivial semantic quibble. Being insane doesn't alter the facts of actions and motivations (however distorted they may have been). I mean... thinking 99 virgins await after crashing a passenger plane into a skyscraper is not quite what most woud call "sane". Obotlig (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth; Norwegian media still refer to the attacks as "terrorist attacks" and to ABB himself as a "terrorist", even after the report on his mental health was released. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about points 1 and 3. The prosecutor considered to charge him with crimes against humanity (criminal code chapter 16), this is the one that was dropped. I agree with Obotlig that "terrorist" vs "mass murderer" is a question of semantics. It is obviously trivial compared to the gravity of the topic, but still important enough that it has to be decided. There is a difference between being crazy and being clinically insane, and Breivik is the latter. If the news media continues to refer to him as a terrorist, I guess it will be correct of Wikipedia to do it also, but I still think the label is semantically wrong. -- Heptor _talk 00:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a terrorist doesn't imply being a member of a terrorist organisation. In many countries, there are laws against terrorist organisations rather than terrorist individuals, not because the latter don't exist, but because the former are potentially more dangerous and are easier to spot before any terrorist act has been committed. These laws fill a gap in many jurisdictions which does not otherwise make it possible to prosecute terrorists who haven't gone beyond the planning stage. Laws that punish intent rather than acts are normally frowned upon for very good reasons, and punishing only the membership in a terrorist organisation is a compromise.

I don't know the Norwegian laws, but should the judge decide that the terrorism paragraph doesn't apply to Breivik because a single person can't be a terrorist organisation, then this could in no way be interpreted as implying that Breivik is not a terrorist. A terrorist is any person who kills or seriously hurts or endangers people for a purpose that is not immediately related to the act but indirectly, through instilling fear in the general population. That clearly applies here, and it has nothing to do with Breivik's (lack of) sanity. See also No true Scotsman. Hans Adler 09:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the Norwegian criminal law don't define the person in itself, just the acts someone did or were trying to do. Awkward translation of §147a (found in Norwegian here [33])

§ 147a. An offense as mentioned in §§ 148, 151 a, 151 b first paragraph cf. third paragraph, 152 second paragraph, 152 a second paragraph, 152 b, 153 first to third paragraph, 153 a, 154, 223 second paragraph, 224 , 225 first or second paragraph, 231 cf. 232, or 233 is considered a terrorist act and is punishable by imprisonment up to 21 years when committed with the intent

a) to interfere seriously with a function of fundamental importance in society, such as legislative, executive or judicial authority, energy supply, safe supply of food or water, banking and monetary system or health emergency preparedness and infection control,

b) creating serious fear in a population, or

c) unfairly forcing public authorities or an intergovernmental organization to do, tolerate or refrain from anything of significance for the country or organization, or another country or intergovernmental organization.

[...]

§ 148. Whoever causes conflagration, collapsed buildings, explosions, flooding, sea damage, railway accident or aviation accident whereby loss of life or extensive destruction of foreign property can be easily caused, or who is accessory thereto, shall be punished with imprisonment from 2 years up to 21 years, but not under 5 years if anyone because of the crime is killed or seriously injured to body or in health. Attempts are punishable equally to consummated crime.

[...]

§ 231. He who causes or contributes to inflict significant damage upon another person's body or health shall be punished for assault with prison for minimum 3 years. Has he acted deliberately then prison up to 21 years can be used, providing the crime has caused death.

§ 233. He who causes another's death or has contributed to it, shall be punished for murder with prison for at least 8 years.

The skipped over § contains text for actions (and their min/max sentences if done individually) I doubt have relevance, such as hijacking, starting/stopping/poisoning/contaminating conflagration/electricity/water/air/broadcasts, possession/use of poisons/chemical/biological/uranium/plutonium substances, contagious diseases, human trafficking/kidnapping/slavery/torture. I think you get the idea of what acts that might be defined as terrorism if used as described in the subclauses. The way I see it the media's statements of him (and the acts) being a terrorist is often based on the definitions by various experts on the subject. To whose definitions I agree and ABB and his actions fits for almost all of their definitions. Initially a lot more newspapers used it for the shock effect. Later it seems to me the lack of the same words by a other media is mostly to avoid angering their readers that might disagree with the words used to describe him, more so than the main content in the article itself. -Laniala (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because the Norwegian court doesn't legally define him as a terrorist doesn't mean that he isn't one as defined by international law. Shabeki (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How many sane terrorists do you know of? Shabeki (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually we're not even allowed to call Osama bin Laden a terrorist (check the first FAQ on the talk page: Talk:Osama bin Laden). And neither of the sources after the word "terrorist" in the lead actually say that he's a terrorist. Removing this now, yes? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 00:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

INFORMATION TO ALL OF THE ABOVE: A new committee of psychiatrists have now concluded that he is not a paranoid schizophreniac. They have concluded that he's an extreme narcissist and has antisocial personality disorder but that his mental state at the time of the terrorist acts makes sentencing him to jail legal afterall (for Norwegian readers: http://www.nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.8067009!Pressemelding%20sakkyndigrapport.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.251.126 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because he is nuts doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.113.176 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Labeling him as terrorist brings no added informational value at this moment. Removing. 120.126.47.1 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the current version to make it more neutral (as was stated in the edit comment) looks a bit odd. «[...] accused mass murderer and the confessed perpetrator [...]» It looks a bit contradictory. -Laniala (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Alma mater"

Should the name of his high school really be included among only three other kinds of background facts?

I'll make my case: 1) Breivik dropped out. He never graduated. 2) Breivik was absent for much of the schoolyear before dropping out. 3) Breivik's high school education has, in the wake of July 22nd, only been mentioned when making timelines of his life. It has never been seen as, nor suggested to have been, a place that was influential in shifting his opinions towards the extreme right. 4) The fact that he went to the Oslo Commerce School is not mentioned in the info box in the Norwegian article about him; his education is listed only as "high school". The underlines my point that what high school he went to has been regarded as completely irrelevant. 5) Oslo Commerce School was not the only high school he attended. He attended Frogner High School as well, before switching to Oslo Commerce School. 6) Oslo Commerce School is already mentioned twice in the article anyway, while no other schools, even high schools, are listed in the information box.

When one obviously has chosen to include few background facts in the information box, I believe making the high school he dropped out of one of only four facts is odd, especially considering the before-mentioned circumstances. While I do agree that his education should be mentioned, the information box serves to provide short and essential information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.128.64 (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In Norway, someone's primary school or secondary school is not considered an "alma mater" that one lists in an infobox. JonFlaune (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Typo

The psychiatrist Randi Rosenqvist has her name misspelled as Rosenquist.

 Done -Laniala (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why a 'terrorist'?

It's like saying the Twin Towers collapsed under their own weight when anyone with a degree in Science knows it must have been a bomb that caused it.

I have a degree in science so your statement is false. --Javaweb (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

By all means call him a suspected mass murderer but please don't call him a terrorist until proven guilty. JCMullen (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

He has said wanted to terrorize Norway. In fact, he said he wanted to wear a swastika to add to the terror but felt it would undercut the rest of his message. He says he copied Al Quaeda tactics. He has admitted to the bombing as well as the massacre plus there are no reliable sources that say otherwise. Whatever your opinion of 9-11, it does not apply here. --Javaweb (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

"Accused" mass murderer

I guess calling this guy an "accused mass murderer" is not quite like calling him an "alleged mass murderer," but the word "accused" still seems pretty absurd in this case. Will it finally be removed after he's found guilty and he's no longer "accused" and just a plain old mass murderer? ...And the first reference to his being a "narcissist" should have a Wikipedia link, as should the later reference to his having "narcissistic personality disorder." (Vbzrserrghbdfb (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

Both narcissist references are now wiki-linked . --Javaweb (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Like I added in the terrorist discussion at the top, my opinion on the current version to make it more neutral (as was stated in the edit comment) looks a bit odd. «[...] accused mass murderer and the confessed perpetrator [...]» I think it looks a bit self-contradictory. And it's not technically correct either because he is accused terrorist, not accused mass murderer. He has confessed to the killings/murders, he as not confessed to being a terrorist. -Laniala (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Breivik IS a mass murderer. He admitted so himself. Even if we assume his defense is 100% correct and he did what he did in complete self defense, he still did a mass murder, in self defense. If there is an alleged, it should be in terrorist, not mass murderer.

Maybe to make it more neutral in this case, change "murderer" to "killer" (or whichever term rings a better bell in your opinion) Arathian (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you're trying to do the best neutral thing here, but his refusal to accept the label "murderer" is based on the conception that Norway have no right to judge him, that it is an invalid nation, and that he is at war with Norway. That's a POV that infinitesimally few adher to. We don't need to put undue weight upon such a POV. He is beyond reasonable doubt a Norwegian mass murderer accused of terrorism. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The shooter is only well known because he killed scores of unarmed teenagers and bombed a building. In Wikipedia, he is a murderer only when the Norway legal system says he is. The trial will end. If and when he is found guilty, "murderer" will be correct. Meanwhile, is there a concise phrase for someone that massacres scores of unarmed kids? --Javaweb (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Important information about his adolescence

In the opinion article "Sint ung mann" by NRK 3 copywriter Sturla Haugsgjerd, who grew up in the same area as Breivik and who has, apparently, interviewed a number of Breivik's adolescent friends, a lot of interesting insights into Anders Behring Breivik's youth rebellious period is given, with several new pieces of information emerging as well, such as Breivik at times speaking with a Pakistani accent. Due to its format this article is not a reliable source, but I would think some of the information may surface in other media reports, and if so we could use that to amend the present article. __meco (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Glock 34

He used a glock 34, not 17. Source: http://bildr.no/view/1171810 Capture from trial on norwegian national television, on internett tv on ther site www.nrk.no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.58.90 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK we remove the editnotice about the manifesto now?

Has the time ripened for removing the editnotice about treating Breivik's manifesto as a primary source and similarly removing the header banner saying the same from the talk page? Or do people expect this will lead to unwanted edits? I personally doubt that at this point. __meco (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Galtung's comments on the attacks

I've balanced the way Galtung's comments have been represented in the article, but really to include the reprehensible, racist comments at all seems a breach of WP:UNDUE. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Breivik's alleged Zionism was discussed (see above #18) and there's a question of its importance. When a major pillar of the Norwegian establishment sees its importance as sinister that is telling us something. But perhaps you're right that this isn't about Breivik but Galtung. What do other editors think? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That someone with a hatred of Islam feels an affinity for Israel is one thing, and it's worth recording here. Including a madcap unsupported opinion from a Norwegian academic insinuating that "Jews" had some role in the attacks is just wrong. --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I see spurious references to the “Tea Party”, Vladimir Putin, English Defense League, Daniel Pipes, “Christian fundamentalism”, “Lionheart”, and others. The article has claims or insinuations of associations and influence that are questionable. Yet, they are repeated in the media, discussed, and sometimes dismissed. Why exclude this example which was published in a respectable newspaper about one of Norway’s most revered academics. Of course, it should be dismissed as bunk (with references to sources). If we are going to raise the bar for “undue” consideration, we might want to reconsider many of the rumors and light-weighted references to other groups and individuals. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If they're weighty claims, great. If they're lightweight, based on one person's racism, UNDUE trumps your OTHERSTUFF argument. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe they are all undue. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So remove them all. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

PS That one has "hatred of Islam" and would therefore feel "affinity for Israel" is itself a worrisome statement. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In the mind of someone inclined to mass murder of innocent people, I can understand the association: My enemy's enemy, etc. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's original research.

I was one who supported the insertion of his support for Zionism (see Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Zionism) but now I believe I was mistaken. I saw his support for Zionism as support for nationalist cultures or what some call monocultures. He also admires Japan and Korea for this reason. It didn't occur to me that his support for Zionism had something to do with his hatred of Islam. After all, Israel and its Jews aren't anti-Islam nor do they consider Islam the enemy as you seem to think!!! Now that I notice that Zionism is part of a section on "Islamophobia and Zionism" I withdraw my support for the insertion of Zionism. I believe we should pull both Zionism and Prof Galtung's conspiracy theory out simultaneously. And we should remove "Zionism" from the section title. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is allowed to be original research. Material on Wikipedia isn't. Remove it with my blessing, it's nonsense from a solitary racist. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we're not going to remove his well sourced support for zionism (which is not something "inserted", but somethat that has been present in the stable version of the article since its creation more or less) because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This has been discussed ad nauseam in the archives of this talk page and the consensus is to include it. No other fact in the entire article is better sourced than this particular issue, including sources demonstrating its notability. There are 30 additional sources or so, including sources demonstrating it to be significant, found in the archives. JonFlaune (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Zionism is discussed in the Manifesto section. The Jerusalem Post article is about the Manifesto. The JPost article doesn't argue that his Zionism derives from his Islamophobia but describes his Zionism and nationalism in the same breath. The section "Islamophobia and Zionism" of our article suggests that these two positions go together. This is an attack on Zionism that clearly is not in the Jerusalem Post article. I suggest that Zionism be removed from the "Religion and Political Views" section. Why is Zionism the only political view discussed in that section? His political views are far more extensive and they are discussed in many articles.

In summary, Zionism is well represented in our article and discussed elsewhere. The insinuation that Zionism is derived from Islamophobia is pure WP:POV and should be removed from the religion section. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jason and Dweller, and I therefore removed "Zionism" from the "Religion and Political Views" once again. - Ankimai (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:AB Breivik bilde 1468 lrg.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Just for information if anyone actually cares. The current image of Breivik in this article, File:AB Breivik bilde 1468 lrg.jpg, has been nominated for deletion (to conform with the premises given at the image upload time). The entry is here (you might have to scroll a bit). I assume there is no bot like Commonsbot since the image isn't on Commons. Anyway, this is just for information if you want to keep the picture. Personally I don't care if I don't see his face. -Laniala (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

shooter video games

Who honestly wrote this: "used to play first person shoooter games such as Modern Warfare 2 and World of Warcraft". World of warcraft is not a first person shooter, any 5 year old can tell you that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.182.77 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you suggest this be worded? __meco (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern Warfare 2 is a first person shooter (FPS) however World of Warcraft is a Fantasy Mass Multiplayer Online Roleplay Game (FMMORPG), it really should be classified as, maybe.

"Video Games"

"used to play games such as Modern Warfare 2 and World of Warcraft..."

Tesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teshiburu (talk • contribs) 07:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made changes per your suggestion. __meco (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's still in a section titled "Shooter video games"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.182.77 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I didn't get that there were two parts to your suggestion. I've changed the section title also. __meco (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Should he have his own page?

I thought Wikipedia's policy was to not give separate pages to people who are only known for one act/event. This is why Casey Anthony doesn't have her own page. Searching for her redirects you to the "death of Caylee Anthony" page. Should entering Breivik's name not just redirect you to the "2011 Norway Attacks" page?

Why should this asshole get his own page and bio and everything? It's just another platform...but the main reason he shouldn't have his own page is because of Wikipedia's policy (as far as I understand it). Thanks. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.224.170 (talk) 00:51, May 24, 2012‎ (UTC)

You are referring to WP:ONEEVENT. If you look at the top of this page you will see that this article was nominated for deletion the day after the July 22 attacks. I think also if you read the short section that I have linked to you will realize that having this article is perfectly justified in relation to Wikipedia policies. __meco (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Profanity In the First Line

Could someone with editing priveleges remove the "Cowardly Murdering Nazi Shitstain" line from the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.144 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone has fixed it. __meco (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

June 8 edits re: psychiatric evaluation

I don't think Malt's testimony should be included in the psychiatric evaluation section since this was a private prosecution witness who testified that he was not actually giving a diagnosis. He was commenting on aspects of the first two psychiatric reports and giving possible alternative avenues for diagnostic exploration. Malt testified that he has not spoken to or examined Breivik. I also think it's improper to include Breivik in the category of persons with Asperger's. He has not been given that diagnosis. Minor4th 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For example see this article: [34] wherein it is reported that Malt testified that he is not making a final diagnosis of Breivik and only giving context to the differences between the two earlier reports. Minor4th 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Images at Flickr

If we can't get photos about this person, why not use pictures like portraits? Here is some I found: http://www.flickr.com/photos/home_of_chaos/7262012920/ Egon Eagle (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not a freely licenced image. __meco (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But non-free images are permissable where it isn't possible to create a real one. And it will never be possible to create a free one of Breivik.--109.152.242.28 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why not. Of course obtaining photos of him is and will remain possible. He's not tucked away in a secret dungeon. __meco (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at Flickr and found these: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=anders+breivik&l=commderiv&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1 I know the photos with the red shirt is non-free. What choise do we have? Egon Eagle (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh wise non-anonymous Wikipedia editors

This--

"In it he lays out his worldview, which includes opposition to feminism,[30][31] Islamophobia, Zionism[26] and India's right-wing Hindu groups.[32]"

--makes it seem like he opposes Islamophobia, Zionism, India's righ..blah, blah, blah, when clearly that was not the intent. Could one of you registered Wikipedia users please add "and support for" in front of "Islamophobia" to clarify? This poor, unworthy of editing, anonymous user begs your majesties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.168.226 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. And registering is nothing special, really, just click here to create an account. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nah, I prefer to have the "original" Wikipedia experience from the early 2000s when most people could edit most pages, registered or not. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.168.226 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They still can as a general rule. Some pages have added restrictions for specific reasons. __meco (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Zionism

I urge you to delete the suggestion that Breivik's manifesto supports Zionism. Seeing as Breivik is a white supremacist and his writings show no understanding of zionism, it is hard to see how he should sympathise with the plight of the Jewish people. It is at the very least controversial, but most likely an insidious accusation to mention zionism it in the same sentence as right-wing populism, Islamophobia, and anti-feminism. This politicised comparison intends to defame Zionism by linking it to a vicious white supremacist killer is in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.176.247 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't remove sourced material simply because you don't like it. Good sources like the Jerusalem Post have demonstrated that zionism is an essential part of his worldview. JonFlaune (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Breivik is not racist (Islam is not a race, nor are women a race) and thus by definition not a white supremacist. He is a far-right terrorist/revolutionary/nutjob (select your viewpoint) and a pro-zionist. This is fact. We can't change facts you don't like, sorry. 74.15.139.32 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Breivik is definitely not a white supremacist, which is a US-centric term not very relevant in Norway anyway. He is primarily an Islamophobe. Support for Israel plays a major role in his worldview. In his manifesto, he describes his main goal as "A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now)". He was also a member of the Progress Party, the only party in Norway to declare itself as hardline pro-Israel while all the other parties take a nuanced or critical approach to Israel. He also wrote for the website document.no, a hard right website known for its support for Israel and anti-Muslim commentary. JonFlaune (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It is also important to distinguish Breivik's views from other European far-right movements, many of which are anti-Semetic and race-based. However, it might be appropriate to show that he advocates a homeland for Muslims just like he advocates homelands for Jews, Hindus, Japanese, and Norwegians. He is against Muslims in "his country" and against Europeans in theirs. He has this obsession with mono-cultures. This would explain his pro-Zionism. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Breivik is a nationalist. He believes every nation needs a home, no matter what. He isn't an Islamophobe per se (although he definitively dislikes Islam) he just doesn't want it in the Christian world. In the end of the day, he openly admitted to thinking of using Al Qaeda tactics. An Islamophobe would never admit that. That is why he attacked what he called "traitors" and "cultural marxists" and not muslims like most would expect to 65.92.6.32 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

His fews aren't that "right wing extremist" either. What he says isn't "extreme" that only the 5% on the extreme right would share it. It's pretty close to the center. Although many wouldn't openly say it, if they'd be honest, they'd agree with him on his stance on muslims, immigration, repopulation of Norway, multiculturalism, etc. --41.151.80.131 (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, his views on many things isn't really the view of an extreme minority. The problems that he highlight regarding islam in non-Muslim countries such a Norway is agreed upon by many, if not the majority of the population in Europe (and elsewhere i guess). However, his ciminal and horrible actions is what clearly makes him an extremist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed upon by many? Really? Got some proof?

By is own words, he was a supporter of the state of Israel and was against anti-semitism. He was a sick person, thats not the point but his far-right ideology is different from nazism and white supremacy groups. I can quote from the "Jerusalem Post" article: "In one passage, he lashes out at the Western media, which he accuses of unfairly focusing on the wrongdoing of Jews./ “Western Journalists again and again systematically ignore serious Muslim attacks and rather focus on the Jews,” he wrote./ Breivik also took a jab at leftwing Jews./ “Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us,” he continued./ “So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.”/ He also stated that Israel is the homeland for Jews largely due to the persecution suffered by Jews at the hands of Muslims, saying “if one acknowledges that Islam has always oppressed the Jews, one accepts that Israel was a necessary refuge for the Jews fleeing not only the European, but also the Islamic variety of anti- Judaism.”81.193.215.143 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is funny. You could just say that he oppose Islam and any multicultural involve with them. To refer it to "Zionism" just induce hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.141.191 (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is devolving into a discussion of the topic in general. Please take that elsewhere. this is not the place to share our personal views on what is and isn't mainstream, etc. This is specifically a place to suggest and discuss specific changes to the article.This, by policy, not a forum.204.65.34.237 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

2011_Norway_attacks#Czech_copycat

I have added 2011_Norway_attacks#Czech_copycat, I am not sure how to link it from this article, could someone do it? Thank you Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Understanding the sentence

When someone is sentenced to "forvaring" (containment) (see http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forvaring ), they receive a "time frame" (tidsramme) and a "minimum time" (minstetid). The maximum time frame is 21 years and the maximum minimum time is 10 years. A containment sentence can theoretically be extended indefinitely, as long as the convict is considered a danger to society. A containment sentence with a time frame of 21 years and a minimum time of 10 years is the maximum penalty in Norway and roughly equal to "life sentences" in other European countries. (a "life sentence" elsewhere usually means you serve 15-25 years). JonFlaune (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The translation of "forvaring" found in any judicial books is "preventive detention" or "preventive custody". Kriminalomsorgen uses "preventive detention" [35]. So, 21 years + 5 years + 5 years + 5 years + ... + 5 years, until dead because of old age or something else. Hekseuret (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting this translation. JonFlaune (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it's not quite correct that he was sentenced to "21 years in jail". If you get sentenced to preventive detention, you are formally sentenced to preventive detention with a time frame and a minimum time. The time frame is 21 years, but it doesn't mean you'll be in prison for 21 years, it could be less or it could be more. After the minimum time, he can be evaluated for a possible release. JonFlaune (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)