Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Inspired by Enoch Powell?

In his speech today he stated: "These preventive attacks [by Breivik, Peter Mangs and others] prove that Enoch Powell is right and ethnic civil war is beginning," he told the court in his testimony. "He said 'rivers of blood will flow through our streets'. Unfortunately nobody listened to him." (Source). Can we add this? 79.97.154.238 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. What do others think? Do we have more references to Enoch Powell? __meco (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Telegraph describes this as a "rambling testimony", it would seem highly questionable to pick out references to particular individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda article?

I've already noted the overuse of pov terms in the article lead. There are alsos many worrying aspects about the body of the article. Why is there no content at all about the choice of the targets? Why is there no content at all about the political and social context of the events, and their specificity to Norway? Why is the content about the attacks reduced to a few sentences while the trial section given enormous coverage? An article about a person should be concentrate on the things that person has done or written about, not to things that were out of that person's immediate control (like, in this case, the trial). Meowy 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? You are describing an article about a mass murderer as 'propaganda'? On who's behalf? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of covert anti-mass-murder conspiracy involved in writing the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's upset that Breivik is described as a far-right terrorist. That's how the sources (rather accurately) describe him, so I have to conclude that the problem lies in Meowy's perceptions, not the article.

Meowy, the reason we don't focus on what he's written is because Breivik is terrible bigot, conspiracy theorist, and only barely sane; and so we instead go with what is written about Breivik. Most of those sources concluded he was far-right (seeing how he was a strong nationalist opposed to liberalism, socialism, communism, and multiculturalism, that's a pretty apt description) and a terrorist (he committed violent acts and threatened more to try to scare people into complying with his batshit ideology, that's terrorism). Most of the sources focus on the trial because the shooting was only one day, while the trial has gone on a long time. That's why the article is written the way it is, not because of some bias. Any perception of bias is your fault. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...committed violent acts and threatened more to try to scare people into complying with its batshit ideology" - sounds rather like an everyday example of the foreign policy of the United States of America. Which is why the phrase "terrorist" is so pov that it should not be used. On Wikipedia terrorisim can't be used to decribe the foreign policy of the United States, or the policy of individuals or groups (unless they call themselves by that term) no matter how many people call it exactly that. At the most, all we could have is a source that describing such policy as terroristic or such a person or organisation as a terrorist - and it would not be in the lead. Meowy 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Red herrings to continue to excuse Breivik. Go away, nasty person. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that terrorist shouldn't be used in the lede, and while the MoS does say "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", right after that it says "in which case use in-text attribution". I think following the MoS is especially important in the lede; perhaps it would help to use in-text attribution ("terrorist according to...") or perhaps clarify the wording to make it clearer that the individual was convicted for terrorism? - SudoGhost 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

prague 2010

he tried to buy guns in aug 2010

check ur sources

2083 page 1422 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.184.84 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A note that appears when one tries to edit the article (sorry that you can't right now, bloody vandals keep causing problems):

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

We would need a secondary source to establish that his attempt to purchase guns is noteworthy and not another lie by Breivik. Thanks for your help, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism

Anders Breivik was found guilty of both murder and terrorism; for instance, see this live coverage of the sentencing (which I had added to Trial of Anders Behring Breivik). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no wording in that article that says he was convicted of both "both murder and terrorism" - all it does is deccribe the act as a "terrorist attack". I have seen no source that says Breivik was convicted of "terrorism". Meowy 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And even if there was, it still does not justify the inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the lead. Even Osama bin Laden's article does not have the word "terrorist" in its lead - nor do any persons convicted of terrorist offenses through IRA involvement have the label "terrorist". "Terrorist" is ALWAYS a pov term. Meowy 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The "terrorist" label is clearly sourced inside the article. Breivik has been charged for acts of terrorism under Norwegian law and the court verdict found that he had ideas of fighting islamisation with terror. Add to that a few other reliably sourced instances of "terrorist/terrorism/terror" within the article. His own lawyer compared him to a "cynical terrorist" in his final defence plea. [1] De728631 (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The above is meaningless weasel. You have no source that says the court in Norway convicted Breivik of a "terrorist offense", or of "being a terrorist" (or any similar wording). And since "terrorist" is always a pov term, there are no articles on Wikipedia where persons convicted of "being a terrorist" are called a "terrorist" in the lead. If it is there, it is always deeper in the actual content and it is worded so that it is made clear that it is some body or organisation that is making the "terrorist" claim. Meowy 21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Er. The article directly states that he was charged with both murder and terrorism, and a part of the sentencing (15:53-16:08) goes into detail how his attacks indeed constitute terrorism. If that's not good enough for you, here's another one that states outright that he was found guilty of terrorism. As I had told you on your talk page, I won't object to rephrasing the article, but the fact that he was found guilty of terrorism needs to be mentioned in the article lead. (Aside: The Osama bin Laden article does in fact say in its lead that he was listed by the United States among the "Most Wanted Terrorists". It characterizes the al-Qaeda attacks as "mass-casualty attacks" rather than "terrorist attacks"; presumedly, it's because [arguably] not all their attacks constitute terrorism - many working definitions of terrorism require the attack to be directed at civilians.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think the Wikipedia should avoid being tabloidish in cases like this. Describe what happened, discuss the reactions and court decisions and whatnot, but I believe that few if any articles on people like Breivik make declarative "This person is a terrorist. The bin Laden articles doesn't, the Hassan Nasrallah articles doesn't last I was active at it. Be thoughtful and neutral for a change, everyone. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a source where Breivik's own lawyer describes him as a terrorist, and noted that the terrorist label is per many sources. There's plenty in the article to choose from should anyone think that we cannot have the lede summarize what the article already says. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is it "tabloidish" for the Timothy McVeigh article to call McVeigh a terrorist? Just like Breivik, he was convicted of terrorist offences and is, rightly IMHO, described as a terrorist in the article. Why is Breivik any different? The current "compromise" wording in the lead is ridiculous. He has been convicted of terrorist offences and is therefore a terrorist.--ukexpat (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the "compromise" phrasing; he is not just "noted" to be a terrorist. "He is a convicted mass murderer and and terrorist" means "he was found guilty of [mass] murder and terrorism", which is exactly the case; the introduction of this weasel term removes crucial information from the article lead. If the article needs to be rephrased, I would suggest something like "He is the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, convicted of murder and terrorism". (The disadvantage is that such a phrasing would remove the link to mass murderer - any idea?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mike Rosoft. The "compromise wording" is needlessly convoluted when it is straightforward and uncontroversial that he is a terrorist. The verdict and sentence explicitly convicts him of violating §147 of the criminal code (terrorism) and §233 (homicide). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The lede sentence could stand to be improved slightly, it feels like it flows a little awkwardly around the word 'convicted' and whether it attaches to 'mass murderer', 'terrorist' or both. What about the following: 'Anders Behring Breivik is a self-proclaimed political activist from Norway, convicted in 2012 of terrorism and mass murder'? (self-proclaimed optional) I think the formulation 'convicted of' is more clear than using 'convicted' as an adjective here, and less open to argument about whether he can appropriately be called a 'terrorist'. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 06:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The in-text attribution (stating who calls him a terrorist) is required if the terrorist descriptor is used, per WP:TERRORIST. It could certainly be worded better, but some sort of in-text attribution is needed. This has been discussed (to death) at similar pages, to the point that Talk:Osama bin Laden now has an FAQ section on the matter and Talk:Al-Qaeda has a note on the matter. - SudoGhost 07:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I see the guideline that SudoGhost is referring to, but I think the sentence is convoluted to the point of being misleading.
      • He is not merely "noted for being a terrorist by many", he is a terrorist which is really a very uncontroversial fact.
      • The "compromise wording" (in my opinion, false balance) makes it seem like there is a sizable number of people who think he is not a terrorist, but that view is a highly extreme WP:FRINGE opinion, and giving any significant weight to it is WP:UNDUE.
      • "Considered by the court" to be a terrorist when the lead already says that he was convicted of terrorism is spoonfeeding to the extreme.
      • All the media sources consistently refer to the attacks as terrorism and its perpetrator as a terrorist.
    • An inline citation for the word "terrorist" is fine and welcome, but I see no need to put the list of the people who consider him a terrorist in the text, if this is really needed it should be relegated to the footnotes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It's not inline citation, it's in-text attribution and it's not an optional thing; if the word terrorist is used in the article, it must say who is using that term, because the label of terrorist is not a universal one. The manual of style is there for a reason and even near-universally agreed upon labels of terrorism have to be given in-text attribution on articles, not least of all because "terrorist" doesn't have the same meaning everywhere; who gives this descriptor is as important as the descriptor itself. It doesn't have to be a "compromise wording" giving it any undue weight, but it still has to be there. - SudoGhost 08:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • How about "Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian convicted of mass murder and terrorism"? That in-text cites both the acts of "mass murder" and "terrorism". I am not gung-ho on saying he is a terrorist, but saying that he was convicted of terrorism is factual. I would remove "even his defense lawyer". The defense lawyer Lippestad was arguing for his clients best interests, that is, against committing him to psychiatric treatment, when he made his arguments. There were no comments along the line of "Look, even his defense lawyer thinks he's a terrorist!" anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I suggested something pretty close to that a few hours ago, I think it got overlooked. Stating that he is a terrorist in authoritative voice is controversial and doesn't gel with our guidelines. Stating that he was convicted of terrorism is a statement of fact without making direct assertions. It's a more appropriate way of saying what we need to say. – NULL ‹talk›
            ‹edits› 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If a court has convicted him of terrorism offences, and we have references to support that, he is a terrorist (just like McVeigh - I see no one has apparently taken issue with that).--ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works on Wikipedia, per the Manual of Style. If there are references to support him being convicted of terrorism offenses, that just means the article states that he was convicted of terrorism offenses. If there are numerous references that refer to him as terrorist (and there are), then that is also in the article, but in-text attribution is required; who uses this designation is as important as the designation itself, because what one person/country/group considers terrorism, another group would not. Even if the designation is near-universal, in-text attribution is needed. - SudoGhost 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made a new crack at it. The word "terrorist" is gone, I have replaced that with "convicted of terrorism", which is a matter of fact statement. That way, no one can accuse Wikipedia of calling Breivik a terrorist, but most readers will be able to connect the dots when it says he was convicted of terrorism by the court. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's perfect, I have no objections to it, because it's completely factual and doesn't run afoul of the MoS. - SudoGhost 16:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Will you be making a similar edit to Timothy McVeigh?--ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was convicted of "terrorism" as this Breivik character was. The "terrorist" label would come from countless reliable sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here I support the new (current) wording. It uses a more objective language that reads more appropriately for an encyclopaedia, to me. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Too many sources in the lead

I'm not going to be following this article too closely, but on skimming I noticed that the lead is filled with sources. The lead shouldn't generally include sources because the material is sourced later in the article. If people are adamant in including the sources, it would probably be best to include them in hidden notes. Ryan Vesey 14:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have a Catch-22 here. I understand your objection, but if we remove sources from the lead, people will start challenging every statement there and demand a rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the hidden comment? as in <!--Source A--> Just use the ref names. Ryan Vesey 15:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to Wikipedia for creating more than one megabyte (or mebibyte, to be precise) of discussion about Anders Behring Breivik in a bit over one year and one month. JIP | Talk 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Breivik's actions, and the evaluations of what could make him do such things, have stirred up a lot of controversies in the midst of what was a very horrific and tragic event. The political aspects of the matter have also contributed to this. It is natural that people, including Wikipedia editors, have strong feelings about the subject matter and the way the article should describe it. There have been trolls here who want to push aa POV apologetic to Breivik or just stir up trouble, but for the most part I think the discussions have been in good faith. I prefer extensive talkpage discussion over edit warring with the article itself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Beware weasel words and POV.

The lede is full of pov wording. "Terrorist" is a pov term and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. "Far right" is a pov term that should also not be used. "Militant ideology" is also pov. Brevik’s manifesto was not "Islamophobia, support of Zionism and opposition to feminism" – that is just the opinion of certain commentators who have characterised its content thus. "Attrocities" is also pov and should be stricken from the article. Murder is also non-neutral. I will make the changes as proposed. Villano I (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And blocked along with his half dozen chums. Not who you thought it was though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Atrocities

I hope it's obvious that I'm not a sock. Nor am I a Breivik apologist, and I'm not about to argue that mass murder isn't an atrocity. However, troll or not, Meowy was right that "atrocity" is not a neutral term. According to Wiktionary, an atrocity is "an extremely cruel act; a horrid act of injustice". We are not here to pass judgement, and just because a vast majority of people agree that his crimes were horrendous, that doesn't make it objectively true.

The article only uses the word once, in the lead: "Breivik wrote that his main motive for the atrocities was to market his manifesto." This usage could easily be substituted for something else, like "his crimes", without affecting the meaning of the sentence in the slightest. Ordinarily, I'd boldly make the change myself, but I suspect such a move would not be well-received, so I'm making an attempt to reach a consensus beforehand. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The NPOV policy does warn against judgemental terms, but there is an important caveat. The text of the policy is:

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

Note the "clarity" caveat. Merely describing the methodical shooting of children as "crimes" doesn't provide sufficient emphasis to describe the how the population in general viewed what he did. "His main motive for his crimes was to market his manifesto" is an overly sympathetic sentence; it gives the impression that Breivik merely broke the law to get attention for his work. If what he did is an atrocity, and virtually everyone agrees that it was (hence: no "conflicting findings"), then there is no violation of the NPOV policy to describe it as such. "No passing of judgement" is sound, but not an absolute. Taken to its logical conclusion, we would have to replace all descriptions of "murder" with the more neutral "homicide". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"...it gives the impression that Breivik merely broke the law to get attention for his work" – Yes, that's what I thought that sentence was saying. It says the same thing no matter which word is used.

To kill so many people to market your manifesto is obviously deplorable; the reader is perfectly capable of making that judgement themselves. "Crime" isn't sympathetic, it's neutral. To me, "atrocities" makes the sentence overly accusative; it sounds like the article's trying to make a point – "Isn't it despicable that he did all this just to get attention?" I don't doubt the good faith of the people who wrote it, I'm just saying that's how it comes across to me, and doubtless to others. It just doesn't sit well with our aim of encyclopedic neutrality. It doesn't matter that everyone agrees it was an atrocity, we still can't describe it as such.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Everyone agrees that 9/11 was a tragedy. Thousands of reliable sources refer to it as a tragedy. Yet the 9/11 article doesn't contain the word "tragedy" (or any of its synonyms). Why? Because an encyclopedia article must be impartial and objective, and "tragedy" is a subjective term. It's an opinion, not a fact. Anyone reading the 9/11 article would likely conclude that the event was a tragedy, but we can't directly tell them to think that.

"Atrocities" is judgemental language, and no clarity would be lost by replacing it with "crimes", so according to WP:NPOV, that's what we should do. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the 9/11 article doesn't use every adjective that could be applicable doesn't really prove anything. The first paragraph of the 9/11 article uses for instance "terrorist", also a negative "judgemental" term (but one that is perfectly accurate). "Atrocity" is not a word to avoid when what is being described is an atrocity. It is used as a factual description in several articles that warrant it (e.g. Rumbula massacre) and even in article titles (e.g. 1971 Bangladesh atrocities and Kindu atrocity) so your interpretation of NPOV policy does not reflect Wikipedia practice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Terrorist" isn't a negative judgemental term, it's a legitimate word used to describe someone who engages in terrorism. Terrorism is easily defined; the use of terror to further political goals can be objectively described as act of terrorism (just as "murder" can be objectively applied to mean the deliberate killing of another person). But nothing can be objectively called an atrocity.

Whatever. I'm not going to get anywhere with this. I'll drop it. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Massacre", "Murder" and "killing" aren't neutral either. This article should be kept to a higher standard. As it is, it's grossly unencyclopedic. The tone is patently biased. Angie Harmon (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Idiot troll is idiotic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

("the most 'army like' rifle allowed in Norway")

Not true!. M16 and AK clones are legal in norway. thous this statment is by far incorrect.

http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/filer/sf-20110909-0930.html (norwegian laws regarding which rifles are allowed / translation Follows underneat orginal article)

§ 5 Approved semi-automatic rifles for hunting

The following semi-automatic rifles that meet the minimum overall length and barrel length for weapons § 2, ​​first paragraph, is approved for the acquisition, ownership and possession to hunt, see Firearms Regulation § 7, if the firearm at the factory are manufactured to only being able to fire semi-automatic fire :

long and irrelevant list of firearms
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Winchester M/100, 2. Browning BAR (with the exception of the Browning BAR M/1918) 3. Remington Model Four, 4. Remington model 7400, 5. Remington 742 Wood Master, 6. Ruger Mini 14, 7. Ruger Mini 30, 8. Heckler & Koch Model 2000, 9. Marlin model 45, 10. Marlin Model 9 Camp carabiner, 11. Valmet Petra, 12. Valmet Hunter, 13. Voeren model 2185, 14. Vepr Super, 15. Vepr Pioneer, 16. Vepr Hunter 17. Benelli Argo, 18. Sauer mod 303, 19. Carl Gustav 2000 light / Carl Gustav 2000 Classic weapon, 20. Merkel SR 1, 21. Remington 750, and 22. Heckler & Koch Model 770

Also many more types are allowed for practical shooting. i just listed the ones allowed for hunting, but it proves the statment very wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.16.208 (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:No original research. The quoted bit appears to be Breivik's assessment, which should be noted as such, though, since it's of questionable reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, the quoted bit could be removed for not being properly sourced, was just done. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've deleted the quote, as it is far from clear where it is cited from (quotes must be explicitly sourced) - and if it is from Breivik, we aren't particularly interested in propagating his fantasies anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous mention of Breivik's support of Zionism.

Breivik's own manifesto clearly indicates that his primary grievance was multiculturalism, and therefore he sympathises with and supports nationalism and nation-states in many of their manifestations. The singling out of his support of Zionism, while ignoring all other nationalisms, while ignoring the fact that this was simply a facet of his broader support for nation-states grounded in his opposition to multiculturalism is done with specific intent to attach a despicable man to Zionism, Israel, and the Jewish people. Moreover, it is also an attempt to associate Zionism with terrorism, mass murder, and other horrible acts. Just because the Jerusalem Post mentions his support for Zionism DOES NOT mean that this support was central to his core ideological leanings or political philosophy, and by extension to his motivations for carrying out a mass murder. The mention of Zionism should ONLY be mentioned in the context of his broader support for nationalism and nation-states, and should certainly NOT be in the introductory paragraph listen as a central focus of his ideological leanings/political philosophy/motivations. Bobinisrael (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• We are not singling out Zionism; Breivik did. There's no reason to remove or downplay this information just because of your concerns of guilt by association. (After all, even Hitler believed that two plus two equals four.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Except Breivik didn't single out Zionism, he talked about his support for nationalism in a general sense while opposing multiculturalism. I've clearly stated this fact in my initial contribution, which you've unsurprisingly COMPLETELY ignored. His writings about Zionism and Israel dealt primarily with the unique experience they've had with Islam/Islamism/Islamic terrorism/Muslims, which he thought provided important lessons to Europe to combat what he viewed as a gradual and softer Islamic conquest via contemporary immigration and multiculturalism policies. The article is dishonestly singling out Zionism for transparent reasons, and you're sticking up for it. Predictably, the actual manifesto itself IS NOT sourced. God forbid one should actually go to the widely available primary source that laid out this man's ideology, political philosophy, and motivations for mass murder. Even the video he compiled is not linked in the article. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly: Breivik's support of Zionism is connected to his opposition to Islam, and the Wikipedia article correctly links the two. Indeed, commentators have referred to this. (Wikipedia articles are generally sourced to secondary sources; drawing conclusions from a primary source would constitute original research or synthesis which is outside the scope of Wikipedia.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
      • No, this is misleading, the editors of the article are clearly trying to characterise Zionism as an anti-Islamic ideology, which is of course nonsensical. I don't understand how actually drawing on clear statements that Breivik made in his own manifesto and video (which are predictably not linked in this article) in English constitutes "original research". Breivik also made no mention of Zionism in his 12-minute video, but the reader is dishonestly propagandised to believe that support for Zionism (and not nationalism in a broader sense) was a primary driver of his actions, and a fundamental component of his ideology/political philosophy. This is done by design for transparently anti-Zionist reasons. You're still ignoring the basic fact that Breivik did not single out Zionism, contrary to your earlier dishonest statement. Looks like I'm going to have to edit this article...Bobinisrael (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
        • As the note at the top of this page makes clear, we do not source material for this article from Breivik's 'manifesto' - any content you add sourced from there will be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• That's not what the note at the top of the page says. Content can be sourced from the manifesto and/or video in the appropriate context. Thank you for revealing your commitment to the dishonest narrative of this article by trying to prevent me from engaging in a constructive edit. Bobinisrael (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia article does not imply that Zionism is anti-Muslim; please don't accuse the editors of ulterior motives. You have said, and I have agreed, that Breivik supported Zionism precisely because he opposes Islam. That's why the two are linked in the lead. As for your suggestion of using Breivik's manifesto (which is indeed linked to in the references, though just as a source about itself): Please read the policy against original research. Primary sources should be only used for simple facts; drawing conclusions from them should be left to secondary sources, which can be used as references. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That is NOT what I said, his support for Zionism was grounded in his broader support for nationalism, and the opposite of contemporary multiculturalism policies. His talk of Zionism was primarily with respect to its greater experience with Islam and and what Breivik describes as Islamic conquest/imperialism. He refers to Zionism specifically as a cautionary tale for Europe to learn from with respect to its currently changing demographics, specifically with respect to the growing proportion of its population that self-identify as Muslims.
  • Exactly. "Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source". Bobinisrael appears to be proposing to edit the article according to his interpretation of the source - which is against WP:OR policy, and will be deleted. And lay off the ridiculous accusations of 'dishonesty', unless you wish to be blocked from editing entirely. We comment on Breivik's support for Zionism in the article because multiple commentators have done the same - including Ben Hartman of the Jerusalem Post - was Hartman's statement that Breivik supports "far-right Zionism" an attempt to discredit Israel? Obviously not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This argument amounts to, "I can't be anti-Semitic because I have a Jewish friend". A stupidly written article at the Jerusalem Post hardly supports the dishonest narrative being put forward here that describes Zionism as one of Breivik's primary ideological motivators. More importantly, the article is being used as support for a point in a dishonest context, for reasons I've already explained. If the assertion of Zionism being central to Breivik's ideology was true (and it most certainly IS NOT true), then why not add a hyperlink at the bottom of the page to connect this article to "Zionist terrorism"? Bobinisrael (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • While you claim that I appear to be proposing an edit based on "original research", you on the other hand blatantly misrepresented a Wikipedia policy in stating that any reference to primary sources (either Breivik's manifesto or the 12-minute video he composed) made by me will be instantly deleted, without exception. Your own words were, "any content you add sourced from there will be deleted". That is NOT what the Wikipedia policy referenced in the note at the top of the page entails. So much for good faith.Bobinisrael (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that the accusation of dishonesty was not made against any person. Bob is a new editor who I believe is reacting as can be expected from multiple severe WP:BITE violations by established editors who should know better. —Cupco 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take your BS elsewhere. Anyone who's first post includes a statement that "The singling out of his support of Zionism, while ignoring all other nationalisms, while ignoring the fact that this was simply a facet of his broader support for nation-states grounded in his opposition to multiculturalism is done with specific intent to attach a despicable man to Zionism, Israel, and the Jewish people" deserves to be told that such comments aren't acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That statement similarly was not against any specific editor. If there is some reason that critics are prohibited from speculating on the intent of editors in general, please state it. —Cupco 22:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

How about WP:AGF? Meanwhile, can I suggest that unless you have any proposals regarding the content of this article, you find something more useful to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

I think that I have rectified all of the Dead links in this article, as well as the sole Citation message.--Soulparadox (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Help

Can someone with editing privileges revert the statement "Norwegian nationalism" to "white nationalism" in the introduction section? I don't know who changed it, or why that person has editing privileges and I don't, but we discussed this at length earlier. Furthermore, of the many alternative titles to the sentiments we were trying to capture with the label "white nationalist," Norwegian nationalist makes the least amount of sense, and stinks somewhat of sympathizing euphemism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chainswede (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that the source cited clearly says 'Hvit nasjonalist'(White nationalist), I've changed it back. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Norwegian nationalist" makes perfect sense seeing as how he is an advocate of Norway as a state for ethnic Norwegians, not "white" people. There is a difference between "white" and "Norwegian" and Breivik clearly is concerned more with the latter. Perhaps you think that labeling him a "Norwegian nationalist" is a sympathetic euphemism, but I think labeling him a "white nationalist" is just an attempt to roll him into the the "white supremacist", "Neo-Nazi" category with all of its associations. Perhaps you don't realize that "nation" actually means a people, or ethnic group. --ElkanahTingley (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the source for "white nationalist" and come to the conclusion that it is a sub-standard source without corroboration. In fact, we have a contradiction for this label elsewhere in the article. I have therefore removed the label and also other text referenced from the same source, a U.S. PhD student. __meco (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that "white nationalism" was removed, but I have my doubts about the use of "ultranationalism" as well. I don't think that had been there before. First, later on in the article we have Thomas Hegghammer saying that he's not an "ultranationalist." Additionally, I can't find the term being used in the Washington Post article source. The "ultranationalism" link sends you to the paragraph definition, most of which sounds nothing like what Breivik believed in. Authoritarianism, demagoguery of leadership, tight control over business, genocide do not fit the bill for Breivik. That sounds a lot like fascism and National Socialism, both of which Breivik was vehemently opposed to. The only overlap is reduction or stoppage of immigration and deportation of foreigners. Broadly speaking, "ethnic nationalism" is a much better fit. "Norwegian nationalism" is more specific. I think the reluctance to label him a "Norwegian nationalist" is due to a confusion between "civic nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism." True "nations" are ethnic groups and the original meaning of "nationalism" was "ethnic nationalism." I think people are reluctant to say he's a "Norwegian nationalist" because they think it strips the focus away from the fact that he was concerned with ethnicity and culture, and not simply "the state" of Norway. "Norwegian ethno-nationalist"? It's actually redundant. --ElkanahTingley (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, I read the Washington Post article from July 25, 2011 which was used to support the labels ultranationalism, right-wing populism and islamophobia. I couldn't find it mentioning any of the three. I wonder what is behind that. Perhaps sources have become mixed up in the editing process. In any case, I removed the first two but left islamophobia since that seems well established and uncontroversial, and I also removed the source from the article altogether since it was only used to reference information which it actually didn't mention. __meco (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@ElkanahTingley. Actually, "ethno-nationalist" wouldn't be redundant since the latin word "natio" can refer both to the greek "demos" as well as the greek "ethnos". In modern Europe, first Nationalists were Democrats (not neccessarily Republicans, and don't mix these terms up with the U.S.-parties) who refused imperial rule as well as Kleinstaaterei and proclaimed a (then often non existing) independent and unified nation state. It was later, when these nation states already had been established, when nationalist beliefs began to shift towards ethnically "clean" and homogeneous states. However, according to most of his writings, Breivik doesn't interest himself so much for the "purity of blood" (or does he? - I haven't read them all) but more for some kind of "purity of a monolithic christian culture". True? So maybe the right expression for that kinda standpoint still has to be found.--JakobvS (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was "white nationalist" removed? We had a long discussion about this earlier, and those opposed to it were not able to defend their position. Breivik envisions farms to preserve and protect blue eyed, blond-haired people, and he listened to and celebrated extensively white separatist music. Don't tell me that this is in any way implied in the term nationalist, ElkanahTingley (and did you follow the trial at all, BTW--because this was brought up). The previous source, which for some reason Meco deleted in both places, was deemed sufficient after a long discussion last year (especially in the manifesto section). Can someone with editing privileges put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.1.75 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fremskrittspartet

It´s wrong to refer to Fremskrittspartiet simply as a anti-immigration party. When the party was started in 1973 immigration wasn´t even an issue. Economic liberalism has always been part of the party´s platform. The party´s youth fraction has published comments made by Breivik on their discussion board at the time he was member, and those comments shows he was interested in other issues than just immigration, particularly economic policy. He was a wannabe businessman at the time. Iselilja (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead

The lead is too long. It also gives the killer far too much of the kind of coverage he craved - almost bordering on a bizarre kind of justification. Those who have worked so much on this article might consider reducing some of it a little. Breivik was, after all, just another mass-murdering crank intent on getting his name in the media. BarbarellaTwo (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! The lead needs to be stripped down and yes, Anders is, just what you described.

"....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 15:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, 4 paragraphs is the recommended length per MOS, so the lead is geneally not too long. However, I've removed two sentences of hypothetical nature regarding what could happen if he were judged to be insane, as it seems unncessary to have this in the lead now. JonFlaune (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead is full of pov wording! "Terrorist" is a pov term and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. "Far right" is a pov term that should also not be used (and the meanings of "far right" or "far left" vary greatly from country to country). "Militant ideology" is also pov. Brevik’s manifesto was not "Islamophobia, support of Zionism and opposition to feminism" – that is just the opinion of certain commentators who have characterised its content thus. "Attrocities" is also pov. Meowy 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We base articles on what reliable sources say, not on your POV of what is POV. And if you think that the mass murder of 69 people - mostly teenagers - wasn't 'an atrocity', I suggest you take your deranged POV somewhere else - preferably where nobody has to see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And the above shows why the lead is so pov-filled - like many current event articles on Wikipedia it has become "owned" by a group of editors who are pumped-up with self-righteous indignation about the event. It is also my experience that said editors never have any actual connection to the subject, or any history of editing in the subject's general area before the specific current event enters the news. Meowy 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Self righteous?" Breivik MURDERED dozens of children. Any real human being with a soul would consider that an atrocity. Just leave, sicko, we don't need your trolling here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are heading rapidly towards a situation that merits a lengthy block for incivility. I suggest that you shut your mouth if this is all you can say. Meowy 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We base things on sources. Start writing for a newspaper, then get them to call him 'Steve' or a 'freedom fighter' or whatever you want him to be called, then when that is picked up by other RSs perhaps we will call him a 'Steve' or a 'freedom fighter'. Until then he remains what he is, a far right militant terrorist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "terrorist" from the intro section. My justification is the Wikipedia guideline at [2] Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Meowy 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You are a POV-pusher trying to remove the sourced information describing the evil that Breivik has committed, and seem to want to excuse his actions. I'm willing to call you on your bluff, I won't shut up.

And did you miss the part saying "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"...? It's not contentious that Breivik was a terrorist. Take your Breivik-excusing and get out of here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"in which case use in-text attribution" Did you miss this part? it seems correct here. take YOUR excusing of Anti-semitic boycott that was going on on the island http://1389blog.com/pix/Boycott-Israel.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.103.82 (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Girlfriends?

I can see no mention of girlfriends in this article. Did Anders not have any girlfriend(s)? If not, why not? CJRMcLaughlin (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Would this meet the Notability criteria for Wikipedia? I cannot see why it is so important.--Soulparadox (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Breivik was in a relationship with a Belarusian woman from 2005 to 2006, and they lived a while together in Oslo. Generally we avoid too much mention over "gossip" items such as relationships, but I wouldn't categorically say this isn't relevant, because one of the witnesses in court said that Brevik became far more isolated after that relationship ended.[3][4] Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Think tank

The article cites Pepe Egger from Exclusive Analysis and references the company as a think tank. This appears incorrect. A think tank advocates policy, economic or military issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank), but on the Exclusive Analysis website, the company states that it does not do policy advocacy. http://www.exclusive-analysis.com/aboutus.html Can someone with editing capability please take out the 'think tank' reference? Maybe replace with 'Political Risk firm'PizzathePengiun (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Jussi Halla-aho?

The article does not mention the True Finns MP Jussi Halla-aho as one of Breivik's influencers. This is strange, since it is well-documented in English by the Finnish news media that Breivik quoted his article Multicultural Discourse in Finland and Sweden in his manifesto: YLE News 5.8.2011: Halla-aho claims being victim of “witch-hunt” and YLE News 26.7.2011: Halla-aho claims others using terror agenda. Halla-aho is a politician who is an extremely important influencer in Finland and ignoring this seems to be a glaring omission. Beersven (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Brevik's "accessories"

The section "Knights Templar" contains the following: "The police now view Breivik's claim as a figment of imagination in light of his schizophrenia diagnosis, and are increasingly confident that he had no accessories."

What? Not even a handbag??

The common meaning of "accessory" is: "A thing that can be added to something else to make it more useful, versatile, or attractive." It's often used in relation to clothes. Your "accessories" are your tie, watch, belt, perfume, handbag, jewellery and so on.

Brevik said that his parents "feminized" him. So to me, the term "Brevik's accessories" immediately causes an image of him in a frilly dress, with a handbag!

I was going to change "accessories" to "accomplices". An accomplice is a person who helps another commit a crime. I assumed the author just mixed-up those words.

But then I saw the internal notation accessories. Only then did I remember that "accessory" also has a legal meaning: "A person who aids or contributes in a secondary way or as a subordinate."

Most of us aren't lawyers. In my opinion, as a native English speaker, the common word "accomplice", would be better than using the much-less-common, legal meaning of "accessory". This is an article for general consumption, not a legal brief. (However, I do realize that the two terms, are not quite the same.)

Source of definitions: any English dictionary.

TC 203.122.223.123 (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The page cited "Accessory (legal term)" explains the difference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#Elements 81.234.248.65 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A few possible inaccuracies

In the introduction, it states "He was sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention, a special form of prison sentence, with a minimum of 10 years and the possibility of extension for as long as he is deemed a danger to society; he will probably remain in prison for life." Citing http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/ostafjells/1.8293189 as a source. The cited article reads more like a commentary, writing about the author's personal hopes and opinions regarding the conclusion of the trial. While I hope that he remains imprisoned for the remainder of his life, I believe that the conclusion that he will likely spend the rest of his life in jail should be removed. I have had numerous conversations with one of the psychiatrists directly involved with the Breivik case, and she has told me that the law that would allow Breivik to be imprisoned beyond 21 years, known as forvaring, is written so that the only issue at stake is whether he would pose a continued danger to society were he to be released. She believes that there is a genuine possibility that he could be released because the severity of his crimes would not be at issue.

Right after, this article states in reference to Breivik's 21 year sentence that "This is the maximum penalty in Norway." The maximum penalty in Norway is 30 years for crimes against humanity. See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway

84.215.78.229 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Why no photo?

Being ashamed to show a European white man doing such a thing? It is racism not show his face but to hide his face. --91.6.83.30 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If you take the time to go through the archives, you'll find that it is due to a lack of a photo with an acceptable license. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "fair use" rules are much stricter than the law requires. That's why so many BLP's have no photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And accusations of racism without evidence are insulting. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And stupid... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a gazillion links in the article. Surely at least some of them will have this guy's mug in them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of them will - the problem is finding one with an acceptable licence. If you can find one, do so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just saying that if someone wants to see what that guy looks like, they can check the various external links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you add the photo of this guy? Condemning him to damnatio memoriae is unfit for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.217.74 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been said, because the photos of him that can be found on the Internet aren't under a free license; and he isn't exactly available to be photographed. (See the image use and fair use policy.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why are there pictures of him on other language Wikipedias? And I don't think we would have to worry about Breivik suing the Wikimedia Foundation because he's in jail. PWNGWN (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't Breivik we'd have to worry about suing - it is the image copyright owners. As for why other Wikipedias have photo's I don't know - but the English-language Wikipedia has no control over their content, and they may have different policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. But what about those photos he has taken of himself? Besides of Anders who would own the copyright to them? PWNGWN (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. We cannot use photo's without consent, regardless of who owns the copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that if people really are so keen on wanting an image of him on the page they could always request for the previous image File:AB_Breivik_bilde_1468_lrg.jpg to get undeleted at WP:UNDELETE. It was on the page for several months and simply got deleted because the initial fair-use reason-text wasn't thinking too far ahead. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_May_9#File:AB_Breivik_bilde_1468_lrg.jpg for the deletion process. Personally I don't care and can't be bothered. -Laniala (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Zionism

Per WP:OR we should remove the "Zionist" category, because JP reference doesn't say Breivik defines himself as Zionist. Quote Breivik's words: “Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.” It's clear he applies his own prejudices to Israel to the point of considering Zionism a kind of "ally" in his struggle against Islam and Marxists, but he never defined as Zionist.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The source specifically states that Zionism was among the ideologies in the manifesto. Analyzing the text on your own to decide it doesn't say what reliable sources say it says is what's original research, not going with the sources! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Breivik doesn't say he supports Zionism. He only says, according to reference, "let us fight together against multiculturalism"... he thinks Zionism is an ally in his struggle, but he doesn't know what Zionism means nor defines himself as such. He only applies his own prejudices to Israel, because it's at war with Muslim nations. But he doesn't know anything about Israel, Zionism or the Jewish people. In fact, Breivik also said this: "Today’s conservatives and want to-be Nazis are ignorant when they obsess so much over the Jews. There is no Jewish problem in Western Europe (with the exception of the UK and France) as we only have 1 million in Western Europe, whereas 800,000 out of these 1 million live in France and the UK. The US on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem. But please learn the difference between a nation-wrecking multiculturalist Jew and a conservative Jew."

Not precisely an Herzl... right?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, your original analysis of the quotations has no bearing on what we write, because we use the interpretation of reliable sources. Look at the top of the talk page: "Please note that the Anders Behring Breivik "manifesto" (2083 - A European Declaration of Independence) is considered a primary source, and its use must adhere to the relevant Wikipedia policy. Avoid adding content that engages in analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating the manifesto. Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The manifesto has nothing to do with this. An incorrect category was added based on a JP reference which doesn't say Breivik was or defined himself as Zionist. That's all.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The JPost specifically states that Zionism is among the components of Breivik's worldview. Can you explain why you don't believe it says this? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be best to leave out the Zionist category in order to avoid creating the false impression that Zionism was one of his motives for the attack. Though these issues are examined and explained more in depth in the article, many readers do not look farther than the lead and the category tags. --1ST7 (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

JPost speaks of "far-right Zionism" and not Zionism alone. I changed the introduction to match what the source stated. BenjaminKay (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In a letter to Russian colleagues, Breivik states the following: "All jews who are disloyal towards the interests of the indigenous peoples (Nordics) should be deported. In reality, this will mean that more than 80% of them will be deported. However, I do support Israel's struggle against Jihad. We should not forget that there is a minority of Israeli Jews (20%) that shares our ideology of ethnocentric nationalism and they too want to deport the disloyal foreigners from their country. So no, I'm not a "Zionist".". Should we not take his own words as a reference to whether or not he's a Zionist, rather than the opinion of a news article? Rabbit38 (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see no reason why Wikipedia would take anything hosted on that website as authentic. We base articles on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sentence

On Breivik's page, it lists his sentence as "21 years preventive detention (with the possibility of extension)". This is not what the sentence read at his trial said; at the trial he was sentenced to 21 years in prison. All inmates housed in prison in Norway may be detained further if they are determined to be a threat based on, and this is a rough translation from the Norwegian penal code: '...attention shall be given not only to the crimes committed, but especially to the offender's behavior, as well as social and personal functioning.' This means that regardless of the crime, the key to extending a sentence past the maximum 21 years is the offender's functioning. Since it goes without saying that ANY prisoner is subject to a possible lengthening of their sentence, this is redundant (and, lacking evidence, presumed to be wishful thinking). Since I can not find a source stating that his case is somehow 'special' as pertains to the extended sentencing laws, I have removed the note. Feel free to put it back in if there is a reason why it is necessary to note on this particular case. Clinton (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Too long article

Although information on any topic can be in general appreciable, it seems unfair to devote as many lines as in this article to a miserable monster so valuable to humanity as a bag of excrement. It's easy to find articles about Nobel laureates shorter than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.102.185 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The only notable thing this guy did was live in a country with minimal violent crime, take advantage of their not expecting an attack, and kill lots of unarmed young adults. Among those victims were the likely future leaders of the most popular Party and therefore Norway.

Describing who he killed and what the country lost is important. He was never famous for being a man of ideas so a brief mention of them and that most of the text was plagiarized is sufficient. --Javaweb (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

The Mother

A mention of the book, as well as a brief mention of the controversy/statements from lawyers may be relevant. But the relationship and conflict between Christensen and W. Breivik should not be detailed or a focus of the section because that strays from the article's subject Nor should the section be a book recension. If the book says things related to A. Breivik that is noteworthy enough for inclusion in the encyclopia, it may also - or maybe rather - be included in other parts of the article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention as you said in the Breivik article. And then expanded information in the 2011 Norway attacks article. And if you do not agree then it all needs to be discussed with a consensus before removing sourced information. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the most natural place to include extended discussion of "The Mother" is in Marit Christensen, since the book is at least as much about Wenche Behring Breivik as it is about Anders Arildnordby (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

About removing sourced information. In this case the information was originally added by a sockpuppet which we are free and almost encouraged to remove. It was also very sensitive and controversial information, involving living persons and recently deceased. The stuff is far too sensitive and complicated to let a sockmaster known for a special love for scandalous stuff and for major BLP violations have any influence on it. (Don't have any major problems with the current version) I agree it's a good idea to have stuff about the book itself (and the conflicts around it) mainly in the Marit Christensen article. The book is also quite certainly notable for its own stand alone article if people are interested in writing that. There could than be a link to a possible book article in this article. And as I said above, to the degree this book or commentary around it, has notable information about Breivik it can also be integrated in other parts of the article, like in the family background part. But everything should be done with great care as to which information, sources and words that are added, done with respect for the humanity of the living and recently deceased persons involved. There are also other books about or related to Breivik, published or to-be published and including lenghty sections about all of them in this article would make this part of the article to large; but some of them are probably good sources for other parts of the article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for missing that it was a Sju hav sockpuppet who added the paragraph. Had I known that I would have reverted instead of apparently legitimizing the edit by fixing a reference. I agree with Arildnordby that coverage of The Mother probably belongs on the author of that book, Marit Christensen and that this article probably only needs a brief mention and a link to Christensen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo unavailable → artwork as a substitute?

File:Anders Breivik.jpg

Graffito of Breivik by Thierry Ehrmann

The article is lacking a portrait-picture. Wikimedia Commons provides a photo-realistic graffito (see right) which might work as a subtitute. What's your oppinion? −−Jamiri (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This recently-uploaded image has been proposed for the infobox. I originally removed it as its copyright status seemed unclear. It had been restored, with an edit summary stating that "The artwork is published under the licence „cc-by-2.0“ by the artist himself". Assuming this is correct, I still feel that we need to discuss whether the use of such artwork in an infobox is appropriate. Personally, I think that infoboxes are best used for simple factual information, and the placement of works of art in them is questionable in a context where a photograph is to be expected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's the best free image we have available and there is consensus that it accurately depicts the subject, I see no reason not to use it. An actual photo would clearly be preferred, but until one is available... --Onorem (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I put the painting in the popular culture section. I would say that any biographical article of 20th century or later people should have a photo in the infobox. I hope nobody would object to the painting being placed in the popular culture section. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Flickr page with the picture has set CC-BY as the restrictions, however, in the text below the picture it says courtesy of Organ Museum ©2012 www.AbodeofChaos.org. So kind of conflicting licence? Hekseuret (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. We cannot use this until the copyright status is clarified. --John (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that a painting of Breivik is a strange thing to see here, and my fear when I saw the painting of Breivik is that this page had been compromised by a supporter.Brucemo (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A painting of the man seems to glorify him and his cause. I'm sure we can find an alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:771C:4560:2122:869B:5ABD:6463 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not good to have what appears to be a complimentary portrait of breivik on the article.

If no photo can be used - nothing at all 02:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.162.39 (talk)

New info publish in Expo - my recent revert

I've had second thoughts about my recent edit. The source is Expo (here is the Swedish Wiki entry [5].) It seems very similar to the British foundation Runnymede Trust and it should be acceptable as a source. However, I can't find this story in any Swedish or Norwegian newspaper. That's worries me. I'd like to see some confirmation at least by having another newspaper report that Expo has info on Breivik's new confession. I thought we should wait to avoid Wikipedia becoming part of a rumor mill. If the story stands the test of time, we can put back the edit. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup - I say your original edit, and was wondering whether to raise the matter here. It should be noted that we've generally avoided reporting directly what Breivik has claimed, and left it to secondary sources to interpret such material. It might also be a mistake to give any particular weight to this, given the contradictory nature of Breivik's past statements and the questions regarding his psychiatric state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The letter sent by Breivik has been covered in Die Welt and also mentioned in some Norwegian media. They haven't focused on the alleged ideological shift the way that Expo does. I believe media is a bit afraid of being a parrot for Breivik so they don't want to give his letter and statements in it too much attention. Most international media that has received the letter seem to have chosen not to mention it at all. I don't think there is any reason to doubt that Expo has been able to get access to the letter, but whether we should include information that only Expo focuses on might as you indicate need some consideration. Not all of this is new; he has been more positive to Nazis after his imprisonment and this has been commented on by experts earlier. The section about "Religious and political views" should at a point be updated to include more recent and thorough analysis of Breivik's positions; the section currently relies a bit too much on media reports shortly after the attacks. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict but here it is:) I, too, did find some confirmation of the letter. It's apparently a 30-35 page letter. Most of the news sources report on his complaints of being mistreated (as in this UPI report [6].) The WSJ [7] reports that Breivik says “…the manifesto shouldn't be taken seriously because it was "a cut and paste job" from other authors and didn't necessarily reflect his intentions.” and this is in Zeit [8] Zeit also confirms EXPO's report that Breivik calls himself a fascist (EXPO adds and a Nazi). Over all we should wait to see what secondary sources say is important from these 30-35 pages. It should be noted that he is trying to find a publisher for his Diaries and has a vested interest in dismissing the "Manifesto." But that's my POV. Let's see what the reliable sources find as notable. There's no rush to digest this news. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Breivik's link to nazi ideology has been commented previously by expert, for instance during the trial: An article from Dagbladet: "During his introduction and under the examination in Oslo District Court yesterday Anders Behring Breivik spoke a surprising amount about the interwar period and the basis for Hitler's seizure of power, in addition to comparing his ideology with famous Norwegian and European Nazis. "Behring Breivik's Nazi attitudes are much clearer than before. He represents a hybrid form of naziistisk ideology where he lacks the anti-Semitic elements." (Last quote is from Lars Gule). A new thing in the letter Expo cites, is that he now also expresses anti-Semtitic views. In 2013, he applied to Norwegian authorities to start a Norwegian fascist party. In the application, he also talks about creating an autonomous state for Ethnic Norwegians in Southern Østfold if a fascist take-over of the whole of Norway fails. This is some of the same thing he writes about in the letter Expo cites. Iselilja (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything contradicting the Expo article and Expo hasn't had second thoughts. They are concerned with Nazi groups and individuals. It looks like they focused on that part of the 30 page letter. Most news outlets focus on other aspects (his complaints about prison conditions, his seeking a publisher for his new book, his distancing himself from his previous compendium, etc.) Iselilja, I think you have enough on his evolving Nazism that warrants a section in Religious and political views on Nazism. I don't have the language skills to read the sources to do them justice so I'll leave it to you and others. As an aside, I see there's a recent best seller in Swedish (titled One of us?) by Åsne Seierstad and I wonder if that is something we should know about. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This problem could be quickly solved by having a subsequent chapter. BernardZ (talk)

Religion

I have removed religion from the infobox pending discussion. I understand it is not the normal practice to include the religion of terrorists and spree killers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(I apparently started a discussion the same time Martin did) The religion parameter was removed by an IP editor which I reverted, and Martin Hogbin removed without any explanation. His religion is verifiable and relevant to the article, Martin what was the rationale in removing it? - Aoidh (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Martin, you say it is not the normal practice, can you provide a link to some discussion or guideline which reached that consensus? From what I can tell, there was a pretty strong consensus to include the religion in the infobox previously, and I'm not aware that that consensus has changed. - Aoidh (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the consensus and I hope this will change. Listing religion in the infobox for cases like this is misleading, unenecyclopedic, and provocative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's misleading and it's hardly WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. It may or may not be provocative, but that doesn't matter; Depictions of Muhammad are far more provocative than this infobox parameter, but that doesn't make them unencyclopedic or inappropriate for Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is misleading because it suggests that the stated religion, as it is generally understood and practised, might have some bearing on Breivik's actions, whereas, in fact, it is only Breivik's perverted understanding of that religion that has any relevance to this article. The same applies to other most terrorists and spree killers and to other religions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic (in an infobox, where it is stated without context) because it is an irrelevant personal detail, along with many others, such as height, weight, BMI, favourite colour etcetera, that would not normally be included in an encyclopedia article on a person unless that fact was specially relevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It does matter that it is provocative. If you read wp:BLP you will find, the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, and, This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, ... and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We actually do include religion in the infoboxes of many terrorists. I am unconvinced by "readers knowing that Breivik is a Christian causes harm to Christians in violation of BLP," it's nonsense. Also, given that his Christianity was evidently at least partly behind the murders, it is "specially relevant" - and whether or not he drew inspiration from the scriptures themselves or misinterpreted the scriptures is, on the other hand, completely irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not put your own word in quotes as if they were my words. I did not say, "readers knowing that Breivik is a Christian causes harm to Christians in violation of BLP,".

With your comment, '...his Christianity was evidently at least partly behind the murders...' you have proved my first point. There is no version of Christianity today that I am aware of that promotes mass killings, yet somehow you attribute his actions to that particular religion. That is exactly how adding his religion to the infobox (where there is no space to give more detail) is misleading; it has evidently misled you. The place to mention the religious aspect of this crime is in the body of the article, where it can be properly explained that it was Breivic's perverted personal belief that some aspect of Christianity that required him to kill people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Breivik wasn't driven by religion despite initial reports. However, that's irrelevant. We list datum on BLPs as a routine matter and that includes religion, political party affiliation, alma mater, etc. If it is in a reliable source as routine background information, it's part of the bio. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You say, 'Clearly Breivik wasn't driven by religion...', but just above Roscelese says, '...his Christianity was evidently at least partly behind the murders, it is "specially relevant"...'. Putting his religion in the info box clearly does cause some confusion.

Regarding religion in an infobox being routine, for every person with an article here, there is a vast array of personal data that could be included but probably should not be. Many people with articles here do not have a religion listed in their info box. Clearly someone thinks it is important in this case, and that is misleading as we have just seen. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This may not be the first time that Roscelese and I disagree. The article makes it clear that he isn't religious but uses "Christian" as an identity marker. He sees the label of part of his "branding." We report the many sources that discuss the matter and they seem to believe that he uses that in some "cultural" sense. It's notable according to the sources and the many discussions within the article. I hate these boxes since they pigeonhole and don't explain the nuance of the article; but we have them and the details are in the article. It's legit. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not like infoboxes either, for the reasons that you describe, and exactly as you say the details and nuances are lost when we just have a field in a template to fill in. Infoboxes are a bit of a gimmick; we do it because we can. On the other hand, we can use a little discretion and not fill in every field if there is a reason not to.

I accept that there was a consensus to have religion in the infobox so I will leave it for now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sentence

User:Cjarbo2 said at #Sentence:

On Breivik's page, it lists his sentence as "21 years preventive detention (with the possibility of extension)". This is not what the sentence read at his trial said; at the trial he was sentenced to 21 years in prison. All inmates housed in prison in Norway may be detained further if they are determined to be a threat based on, and this is a rough translation from the Norwegian penal code: '...attention shall be given not only to the crimes committed, but especially to the offender's behavior, as well as social and personal functioning.' This means that regardless of the crime, the key to extending a sentence past the maximum 21 years is the offender's functioning. Since it goes without saying that ANY prisoner is subject to a possible lengthening of their sentence, this is redundant (and, lacking evidence, presumed to be wishful thinking). Since I can not find a source stating that his case is somehow 'special' as pertains to the extended sentencing laws, I have removed the note. Feel free to put it back in if there is a reason why it is necessary to note on this particular case.

This is inaccurate; I have found an English translation of the Norwegian criminal law here. The law distinguishes between "imprisonment" (section 17), "detention" (section 22), and "preventive detention" (section 39c). (I don't know what is the difference between "imprisonment" and "detention". Confusingly, "detention" is a lesser punishment than "imprisonment"; two days of detention are equivalent to one day of imprisonment.) The relevant provisions of the law are:

• When a sentence for a specific term is deemed to be insufficient to protect society, a sentence preventive detention in an institution under the correctional services may be imposed instead of a sentence of imprisonment when the following conditions in No. 1 or No. 2 are fulfilled: [...]
• When passing a sentence of preventive detention the court shall fix a term that should usually not exceed 15 years and may not exceed 21 years. On application by the prosecuting authority the court may, however, extend the fixed term by up to five years at a time. [...] A minimum period of preventive detention not exceeding 10 years should also be determined.

(No such provision exists for the sentence of imprisonment or detention.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The "detention" listed in section 22 ("hefte" in Norwegian) was indeed intended as a less severe sentence for crimes commited with good intentions. In practice, this penalty is no longer used, and I believe it is out of the books in the new criminal code. As for the difference between imprisonment ("fengsel") and preventive detention ("forvaring") Mike Rosoft is correct. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Breivik"

I couldn't get the video in footnote 6 to work, but I happen to know that nobody from in or around Oslo pronounces the "ei" diphthong as "ɛi". Rather, it should be "æi". Of course, I don't know if he prefers "ɛi" for some oddball reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.64.19 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Really sure about that? [æi] sounds more like a stereotypical pronunciation from, say, Bergen. --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Asperger's Category

It is high time that we get to "discuss" in the "WP:BRD" cycle here. Reverting backwards and forwards is getting disruptive. I don't know if we have a policy or guideline concerning what to do if a diagnosis is disputed. My opinion is that it should not be in this case. The Asperger's diagnosis was done by a child psychiatrist who treated Breivik as a four year old [9]. The more recent study was by a team who observed Breivik for three months did not find any signs of Asperger's [10]. Since the latter study was far more comprehensive, it should be more reliable as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

He was also diagnosed with Aspergers by a psychologist who evaluated him after his arrest. I didn't hear sbout him being diagnosed as a child, but that would mean he was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome by two psychologists in two different evaluations at two different stages in his life. It is not disputed that he has been diagnosed with Asperger's, so he belongs in this category.2602:304:78E4:9989:1D62:99D4:54BF:1D9F (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have never been sure what the exact purpose of categories is in WP. Is it just a means of cataloguing and helping readers find articles, or does it have some greater significance? It might be worth addressing that question first. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess we could ask is he known for having Asperger's? He seems to have it, but is that enough to add Brevik to the category? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

He is indeed somewhat known for having Asperger's (his diagnosis was believed to have influenced Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza, who also suffered from Aspergers). And he was diagnosed with the disorder, which should be enough to add him to the category; if that isn't enough, what is?2602:304:78E4:9989:1D62:99D4:54BF:1D9F (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless it's an undisputed fact it's a clear BLP-violation. Note that in the article we give (notable) attributed opinions of experts that go either way but do not assert Asperger as a fact. Categories need to be fact based and this one simply isn't.Semi-protection might be needed to stop the IP hopper.TMCk (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that he was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. If he doesn't belong in this category, then nobody else does either.2602:304:78E4:9989:1D62:99D4:54BF:1D9F (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This category is for people who have been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome. Breivik was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, so he belongs in this category. It doesn't matter if another psychologist disagrees; multiple psychologists could evaluate the same person and each reach a different conclusion. In the case of Breivik, at least one of the psychologists who evaluated him concluded that he had Asperger Syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:78E4:9989:1949:35B0:7932:55F3 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP keeps changing so it is hard to send a message, but I have posted at User talk:2602:304:78E4:9989:7159:D119:6F5C:5122 that this edit warring must stop. The person with IPs in the 2602:304:xxx range is the only one here who supports putting the article into the Asperger's category. The consensus is against this. The reason was clearly stated: the category should not include people unless the diagnosis is undisputed. That you don't think that your arguments were refuted does not give you the right to override consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What may or may not be posted on Wikipedia is based on whether or not it is a fact, and the information I posted is confirmed by multiple credible sources. Whether or not the consensus supports something doesn't determine whether or not it is a fact. This article is also in the 'people with antisocial personality disorder' category, and only one psychologist diagnosed him with the disorder, so is this also a "disputed diagnosis?" Should the article be removed from this category as well? I think that every psychologist who evaluated him diagnosed him with narcissistic personality disorder, so does this count as an "undisputed diagnosis?" And as for "having Aspergers" vs. "being diagnosed with Aspergers" is there really much of a difference? How do you know if someone has it unless they've been diagnosed? Some people are misdiagnosed, but it is difficult to determine if that is the case. Because of this, inclusion in the people with Asperger Syndrome category should be determined by diagnosis, rather than the majority opinion of people on Wikipedia whether or not the diagnosis is correct . At the very least, the concept of 'disputed diagnosis vs. undisputed diagnosis' should be clearly explained in the Wikipedia guidelines.2602:304:78E4:9989:3D9D:8E6D:59C3:C8D8 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not because a majority of Wikipedians think we shouldn't that we should not place him in this category. It is because the diagnosis is disputed by a team of professional psychiatrists that were assigned a task of observing Breivik for three weeks and who found no signs of him having Asperger [11]. The name of the category is "Category:People with Asperger syndrome", it is not "Category:People who have been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome". Inclusion in the category with that title amounts to a statement that that the subject actually has the syndrome, that is a much stronger statement than a statement that someone merely diagnosed him with it. When the diagnosis is as disputed as it is, Wikipedia cannot make a categorical statement that says Breivik has Asperger syndrome as if it were an undisputed fact. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So it is considered a "disputed diagnosis" if it is not agreed upon by everybody who evaluated the person? In regards to Breivik, the only diagnosis that was unanimous was narcissistic personality disorder, which I guess means that its undisputed. Should the category people with antisocial personality disorder be removed? It should be considered disputed since he was not diagnosed with the disorder by everybody who evaluated him.2602:304:78E4:9989:585:3D01:9D4:3A3 (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• If a diagnosis is disputed in reliable sources it cannot be the basis for a categorization, but should be discussed in the body of the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Photograph

Why isn't there a photo?

What about this? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anders_Breivik.jpg - it took me 7 minutes to find one without copyright, so maybe give me a reason, why it is not in place ...

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden has a photo,

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski too

why not him? wikipedia isn't like the aegyptian pharaos, who removed the photos of their former pharaos, or is wikipedia like them? 93.232.61.214 (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a photograph of Breivik - it is a photograph of "Graffito of the Norwegian assassin and convicted murderer Anders Behring Breivik by Thierry Ehrmann". As such, its copyright status is unclear (as is often the case regarding photographs of artwork), and it is questionable that we should use it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there not a better (i.e. more generic) photo of Breivik to use, not one that makes him look like some kind of mythical hero badass, like this graffiti does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.222.54 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That image looks preposterous. Like Han Solo in carbonite. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Image from commons

Why is the info-box lacking any form of image on this person? I can find a suitable image from commons ([12]), which is just as good as any photograph. The image from commons has little to no reasonable excuse as to why it isn't featured in the article. I can see nothing wrong with the copyright, the fact that it has been on commons for over 18 months attests to this and that it has been used in many different language Wikipedias'. It has a confirmed license. So why is it not being used, besides the POV opinions from editors that either a.) The image "isn't" good enough to feature in the article (a bullshit excuse) or b.) It eulogizes him becuase it is a painting (another bullshit excuse)? There is nothing in WP:IUP which can explain for these half-ass excuses. Unless it is justified in accordance with Wikipedia Policy, I'll re-upload it and continue to do so. An image with no copyright violation (if it did, it wouldn't be on commons) is not used in an article which has no image of the individual.... Where have the human brains gone in this world? --Ritsaiph (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The the commons image has in fact now been tagged for deletion. I've got no idea whether the rationale given is valid (and there isn't any point discussing that question here), but it might be best to wait until a decision is reached there before engaging in further debate here. If commons decide to delete it, the issue is moot anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The image has been deleted from commons. [13] Any further discussions regarding the deletion decision must be conducted there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Photograph in uniform

Photographs of Breivik in a self-modified US Marine Corps uniform appear here and here. The insignia are (left to right):

• Row 1: Air Force Presidential Unit Citation (USA)
• Row 2: Air Force Organizational Excellence Award (USA); Legionnaire, Legion of Merit (USA); Bronze Star Medal (USA)
• Row 3: Navy Cross (USA); Air Force Combat Action Medal (USA); Southwest Asia Service Medal (USA)
• Row 4: Coast Guard Arctic Service Medal (USA); Silver Life Saving Meal (USA); Navy Recruit Training Service Ribbon (USA)
• Row 5: Unknown - could be any one of several decorations or orders; Prisoner of War Medal (USA); Purple Heart (USA)
• Row 6: Army Meritorious Unit Commendation (USA); Presidential Unit Citation (Republic of Vietnam); Army Valorous Unit Award (USA)
• Row 7 (Medals): Knights Malta breast badge jewel (Freemasonry); Knights Templar breast badge jewel (Freemasonry); Knight Mason of the Order of the Red Cross of Constantine (Freemasonry)

Whilst the ribbons and masonic jewels are real (or replicas of real awards), he never served in the US or any other military and therefore could never have been awarded any of the medals/ribbons. Moreover as he only completed the third degree of freemasonry, he had not progressed far enough to have been conferred any of the masonic jewels. AusTerrapin (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the edit you've just made [14] covers the issue sufficiently. I don't think anyone is surprised that he appears to be a monumental egotist, regardless of whether he fits the medical definition for narcissistic personality disorder. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The level of detail provided above is overkill for the article (footnote at most) and my analysis is WP:SYN; they are supplied to provide nuance to any comments about him having 'made' the awards - he didn't make them but he did (illegitimately) 'award' them to himself. AusTerrapin (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Glock 17 or 34?

In two places in the text it says he had a Glock 34 (source seems to have moved) and in one place it says he had a Glock 17 (source confirms this, but it's a newspaper), so which is it? I have a feeling Glock 34 would be correct since he obtained it "by demonstrating his membership in a pistol club". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.44.130 (talk • contribs)

• According to the court verdict (uploaded to Wikimedia Commons here) he had a a semiautomatic rifle Ruger Mini 14 cal. 223, and a semiautomatic pistol Glock 9mm. Not very helpful, because according to the Wikipedia article Glock, "the Glock 34 is a competition version of the Glock 17". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Blaze source regarding Breivik deceiving mainstream media reverted

File:Anders Behring Breivik 2014 letter.pdf

the letter

I misread, so my edit summary is inaccurate, but the source is still ludicrously unreliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought tertiary sources were preferred to secondary, but the letter was received by amongst other news orgs Expo (magazine), which is highly regarded (and not at all of a right-wing political bent). "The magazine, issued four times a year, contains investigative journalism focused on nationalist, racist, anti-democratic, anti-semitic, and far-right movements and organizations." There are excerpts from it at http://expo.se/2014/breivik-vill-deportera-illojala-judar_6336.html (this was linked to from the "ludicrously unreliable" source article) - google translate works well on it if you can't read Swedish. Would that source be acceptable to you? --Djbclark (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also here's another article in English, from a source more reliable than The Blaze, Human Events: http://humanevents.com/2014/02/24/norwegian-mad-dog-killer-renounces-his-manifesto/ --Djbclark (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. I don't read Swedish, but why haven't any real sources picked this up if that's what the Expo article actually says? All of the coverage of this is in totally inadmissible sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed you didn't read Swedish, hence the suggestion of Google Translate. In any case, could you explain why Expo isn't a "real" source? It seems to be quite well respected. A bit less so for Human Events, but I don't see why it should be dismissed out of hand. What metric are you using for source quality? Regarding lack of coverage, this is of course rampant speculation, but I'd guess it is because the story was to start out with of little ongoing interest in English-speaking countries 3+ years after the event, but likely moreso that a whole lot of the letter describes how he manipulated the mainstream media and they fell for it completely. Or as he says, "The idea was to manipulate the MSM [Main Stream Media] and others so that they would launch a witchhunt and send their media-rape-squads against our opponents. It worked quite well." - not hard to believe there wouldn't be much reporting where the headline would be "terrorist shows how journalists are naive morons" and then goes on to detail how. Others may not want to lose the slanderous talking point "x was mentioned in Breivik's manifesto" against some critics of islam and zionists. --Djbclark (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems like an important story, and it's strange that Wikipedia wouldn't cover it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Two thoughts: (a) we could include the fact of the disputed veracity of the letter (I guess some might think the parts not included on expo's site may be a hoax or something - although I did actually search for any source saying it's a hoax, and found nothing.) (b) To get rid of that caveat, I could try to get Project Censored, On the Media and/or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting involved - if one of them verified its origin and wrote about it or talked about it in their radio program, would that dispell any sourcing worries? --Djbclark (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If real sources covered this issue, then sourcing problems might indeed be moot, yes. But we can't include something without any proper sources even if we script our own caveats ("we don't know if it's real", "no real sources covered it because they're probably embarrassed"). Even if it's true that reliable sources didn't cover it because they're embarrassed, WP:RS is not suspended. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

add reference

I sugest adding Asne Seierstad's book "One of Us" as a reference.71.219.202.111 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Pete Ruch/20 June 2015

Asperger's?

"Malt cited "the lack of emotion Breivik showed when discussing those he killed, his impressive memory for details, his obsession with numbers, his hypergraphia [obsessive writing], and his monotonous tone of voice" as evidence of Asperger's Syndrome." But the source is Daily Mail. A great shame if no better source than this could be found. I would imagine that Malt's assessment was reported widely in the Norwegian press. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Norwegian press did give extensive coverage to Malt's tesimony. But I am unable to find a Norwegian language version of what was reported (in quotes) by Daily Mail. The existing source is this one from the small Vårt Land (Norwegian newspaper). Other sources, such as this one, from Dagbladet (admittedly a tabloid), report that Malt in fact gave a total of six possible diagnoses, also including paranoid schizophrenia and anti-social personality disorder. I've not added in those other two possibles. But I have re-added what Dagbladet report as Malt's evidence, to balance the statement made about Eirik Johannesen, based on his 20 hours of observation. Perhaps someone more fluent in Norwegian could find a better source. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia

Many sources (include www.telegraph.co.uk/) are no more than boulevard-niveau. The article seems like pure anit-whatever propaganda. No objectivity at all. This whole article needs some clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.149.43 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, think of those poor anits. "Boulevard-niveau?" Is that like a beauty cream for the streets? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Sir John Betjeman would have bought some of that for Slough...? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Come, bombs and blow to smithereens. Those air-conditioned, bright canteens." ... a little close to the mark there, Mr White? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No pictures

Despite the fact that there are tons of images of this person on the internet none seemed to be uploaded, ¿does this have a reason? If not I'll add a picture or request a user to add one. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Alas, equally, there are "tons of copyright restrictions". Breivik was not well-known before the terrorism incident, so finding a free-use image may prove very difficult. I guess this is why we ended up with a drawing here, which was itself an "unambiguous copyright violation". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we not argue fair use on a copyrighted photo? I'm aware that a person being alive generally results in a failure under the "No free equivalent" criterion as they could, presumably, be photographed. However as Breivik is currently incarcerated, commissioning such a picture would be very difficult/impossible. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Worth a try, I would think. Do SwedishNorwegian police take mug-shots like those shown of criminals on British TV? What is their copyright status? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The photographing habits of Swedish police would have little effect on the subject of this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this article should have an image of Breivik or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If a suitable picture can be found that don't come with copyright restriction, it ought to be included. However, as Maunus points out, the copyright status of Swedish mug-shots do not come into play here. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not even if they are copyright free? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You ARE aware that Norway and Sweden are two different nations, right? WegianWarrior (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, so they are. That was my obvious mistake. Thanks for pointing it out so quickly, both of you, so that I didn't appear a complete idiot. I guess if the no.wiki doesn't have one, it's not likely their mugshots are any more free of copyright than UK ones? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

For what's it's worth the Norwegian police is not in the habit of publishing mugshots due to the strong privacy laws of Norway, so I have no idea of their copyright status. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - you answered my question. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC) And explained why the people in Oslo weren't speaking Swedish when I visited this year.

I see that the caption on the photo at the FAIR site here, says "Photo Credit: Flickr Creative Commons/ghostofgoldwater"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Was deleted before.--TMCk (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that was 4 years ago, I see. "- a total time sink" amongst other nice comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Returning to previous point; could we argue fair use for a copyrighted picture on the grounds that Breivik's incarceration makes creating a freely-licensed alternative impossible? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Worth a try, I would think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Christians, etc?

With particular regard to the disputed Category:Norwegian Christians and Category:Norwegian Lutherans, I'd suggest that Breivik belongs in these Christian categories as much as Jihadi John belongs in Category:Muslims, which of course he doesn't. If someone "self identifies as Jesus Christ" does that earn him a place in Category:Savior gods? I'm less sure about Christian terrorism. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, since contrary to your believe Jihadi John is indeed in that Muslim category your point made is moot. Category:British Islamists is a sub of Category:British Muslims which is part of Category:Muslims by nationality and ends at Category:Muslims.--TMCk (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I said "which of course he doesn't." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If the reason for the dispute is that his actions were not Christlike, rather than a disagreement about the sources, it's not going to go anywhere productive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you suggest any way of moving it forward? I was suggesting that any self-identification Breivik may have made, of espousing any particular religious doctrine, might be somewhat "qualified" by his having killed 77 people. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese that, for Wikipedia's purposes, the only criterion for labeling someone a Christian should be that they identify themselves as such. So the category is appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Breivik has self-identified as a "Norwegian Lutheran"? Also, while were here, do you think that whether a person is suffering from a mental illness, when he or she self-identifies, is irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's irrelevant, what a ridiculous question. As for Lutheranism, sources in the article indicate that he joined the church as an adolescent, that his more recent self-reporting indicates "Christian" without a denomination, and that he stated an intention to attend mass in a Lutheran church before committing the murders - do people think we should change this? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why we should change what the article says, no, if those are the facts. I'm still unsure that Breivik can fairly be described, let alone categorised, as a "Lutheran". But with regard to my "ridiculous question", you see no distinction between someone suffering from, say, paranoid schizophrenia, claiming to be a Christian (or a Muslim) and the same claim made by the Pope (or Ali Khamenei)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes mentasl issues are irrelevant for selfidentification purposes in wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Breivik has stated that he is something of a cultural Christian, he belongs to the church because he is a political conservative and enjoys the Christian tradition, but does not believe in god. Something like this is already referenced in the Anders_Behring_Breivik#Christianity section, although I don't personally care enough to do actual edits to the article. --Pudeo' 00:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I could begin to see the argument that a strict interpretation of WP:BLPCAT means that the religion categories are supposed to be used for individuals known for their religious belief, not simply individuals whose religious belief happens to be known. Thus, the Pope would be put in the Catholic category, but not Robert de Niro. I've seen that argument before on other pages, but there doesn't appear to be a site-wide consensus for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's all a bit haphazard. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

But seems he's now decided to join in the debate himself? [15]:

".. Øyvind Strømmen, journalist, author and expert on the extreme-right. He stressed that this is not exceptional in the right-wing context.

He thinks Odin-belief can change the picture of Breivik as a "Christian terrorist".

But to look at him as a Christian extremist has never been particularly apposite. That picture is wrong on all counts and is characterized by people who had not gone into the ideology he put forward in the manifesto. There was never a Christian ideology, says Strømmen.

He stressed that Breivik in his manifesto was keen to defend Christianity and the Christian world, not the religion of Christianity, and Islam."

So I think this essentially undermines the appropriateness of the "Christian" Categories. What do other editors think? I see we have a Category:Odinist Wikipedians but, somewhat strangely, not a Category:Odinists? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fjordman as source

@Martinevans123: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: can you find the claim about Breivik's alleged Wikipedia influence in a reliable source? Fjordman is not a reliable writer and he's not publishing in a reliable venue - I mean, I have a blog too, but it doesn't mean that my opinions belong in Wikipedia, attributed or not. (And, frankly, given that an apparently reliable source has pointed out how much of Breivik's manifesto comes directly from Fjordman's writings, this looks like nothing more than misdirection.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Jarle Vines, Head of Wikimedia Norway, in this piece written by Eirin Larseneirlar at NRK? But yes, the influence of Peder Jensen on Breivik is the real story, and so Jensen may be keen to misdirect. Old news, I guess and says more about Jensen than it does about Breivik. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't read Norwegian and am going based on Google Translate, but it looks like this article is saying that Breivik edited Wikipedia and believed it could be a tool for spreading his values - not that he was influenced by it. That's pretty different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in having a discussion about this topic. Revert me if you like. In this particular case, I don't care. I certainly wouldn't revert back. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Google translate for Norwegian doesn't appear to be ideal, does it. Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick. Now we've got past the censorious edit summaries, Fjordman's claims seem unsupported. So any mention would have to be re-phrased, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of rephrasing - rather, it's a question of "the article currently has an unreliable person publishing in an unreliable source who claims something that's the exact opposite of what a reliable source says." At the very least, the Fjordman source must be removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If the Fjordman source is removed, so must the claim, as it's unsourced? My point would be that the three-way relationship, between Breivik, Fjordman and Wikipedia, is quite complex. But maybe it's too complex to examine here. Or maybe just not worthy of examination. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course you're right - the claim which appears only in an unreliable source should be removed. You, I, or anyone else would be free to add something using the reliable source you've provided (Vines in NRK). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Skien Prison location

This article says Skien prison is "20 miles north of Oslo." Is this wrong? Is there a better source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It's this one. Judging by Google Maps it's 150 kilometres (93 mi) by car (a two-hour drive), and about 100 kilometres (62 mi) in a straight line, to the south-west of Oslo. Ila prison on the other hand, is just shy of 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) north of Oslo. See Ila Detention and Security Prison. --Xover (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. So The Guardian article is indeed wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. James is probably misremembering its location from his visit four years previous to the referenced article (in 2008). --Xover (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Just for a bit more precision: Ila is located in Bærum, 2 km west of the county border with Oslo. The prison north (actually northeast) of Oslo is Ullersmo. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have re-corrected the article. My apologies to User:Einarhagen.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Breivik" (again)

(Yes, I dragged this out of the archives in order to reply)

I couldn't get the video in footnote 6 to work, but I happen to know that nobody from in or around Oslo pronounces the "ei" diphthong as "ɛi". Rather, it should be "æi". Of course, I don't know if he prefers "ɛi" for some oddball reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.64.19 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Really sure about that? [æi] sounds more like a stereotypical pronunciation from, say, Bergen. --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

When combined with the letter "i" to form the diphthong "ei", the "e" effectively becomes an "æ". Thus, "ei" is pronounced "æi". Except in Trondheim. And maybe in Fredrikstad. And since you mentioned Bergen: the letter "r" also tends to turn e's into æ's. To wit: Bergen is pronounced "Bærrgen" and not "Bɛrgen". So, yes, I'm sure about that, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:B82:9990:F198:DE0A:5019:2763 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20132005043700/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/perverts-guide-ideology to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/perverts-guide-ideology

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Bias by one author

User:Martinevens123 has had a problem with presenting Breivik as a Christian and inserts "Odinist" as he religion even though under the section regarding Breivik's religious view shows he was mildly sceptical towards it then outright denounces it. I tried to edit the article, not to add that he was a Christian, but to remove Odinism from his religion. Martinevans123 immediately removes this and tells me to take it to talk. Here I am and I'm going to remove it again. Wikipedia is supposed to be a vehicle of knowledge not for the bigotry of people like Martinevans123 and it should not contain false information to serve the political and social views of others. If he cannot extend to others the same respect he himself expects, he should not be allowed to edit at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.192.238 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

See preceding discussions. Not just me. I didn't originally add "Odinist". Please don't call me "a bigot" for reverting an edit lacking consensus. You now seem to be edit warring. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No, there has been no consensus, merely arguments about his status as a Christian followed by you asserting he is an Odinist (even though his writings, quoted in the article itself, refute this). I'm not starting an "edit war", I'm merely editing the article to fit the facts rather than an agenda and yes, I am calling you a bigot because you are outright lying to distance Christianity from Breivik and demonise another group who have no relation to him, a group that Christians have had a bad history with. That's a paragon case of bigotry. I'm happy for neutral arbitration on this matter, as far as I see it, you are starting and edit war. You asked me to take my reasons to Talk, here I am. (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The idea of the Talk Page discussion is to establish consensus before making further edits, not just to open a thread, threaten another editor, call him a bigot and immediately revert. Please remove your unjustified and repeated personal attack. Where did I "assert he is an Odinist"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I will simply this higher up if you edit it again. I have justified my changes and I base my accusation (which will be part of my defence of blocking you from editing this article) on the bias you display in the other thread about his religious views and your own user page so I happy to defend that as justified too and it is not an attack, it is an accusation of bias. He is not an Odinist, the Wikipedia page itself contains quotes and sources that demonstrate this and there is no justification you have ever given for your inclusion of this. That you cannot do unto others as you would have done unto yourself is your problem but don't demonise others on a public resource for a personal agenda. If you do not assert that he is an Odinist, and the article itself demonstrates he is not, what exact problem do you have with my edit? You are the only person who has mentioned Odinism in relation to him and you took enough of an interest to edit my change, defended in my summary of the change, to revert it 3 minutes later. 86.168.192.238 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Your first sentence doesn't really make sense. But you seem to be again threatening me. You have a strange view of collaborative editing. Please retract your ridiculous personal attack or take it to AN/I. Could you clarify what you mean when you write "the bias you display in the other thread about his religious views and your own user page"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you explain this paragraph, that has again been added, not by me, but by editor consesnsus:

"In letters sent to Norwegian newspaper Dagen in 2015, Breivik said that he "is not, and has never been a Christian", and that he thinks there are few things in the world more "pathetic" than "the Jesus-figure and his message". He states that he prays and sacrifices to Odin, and identifies his religion as Odinism."

Do you intend to rip this out as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Seems like reference should be given to the fact that he's given conflicting statements on the subject, rather than giving some more weight than others. As in other things he's explicitly said he is Christian, including his manifesto. Here's one source that's in the article at present for instance. 219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120114222439/http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Millar+Norway+murderer+Freemason+obsession/5169039/story.html to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Millar+Norway+murderer+Freemason+obsession/5169039/story.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Per this revision, I think the article was originally written in commonwealth English. At the moment it is in a mixture of both main dialects of English, which isn't ok. I propose to standardise on CE. Any objections? --John (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know Norway was in the Commonwealth? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't, and neither is it in one of the places where they use American English. In fact it isn't an English-speaking country at all. In cases like this the rule is that we keep the earliest established dialect. I think this, for this article, is British (or Commonwealth) English. I don't feel all that strongly about it, but it cannot continue to be in a mixture of both. --John (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What a very strange rule that is, especially here. But anything would be better than a mixture I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's intended to prevent edit-warring over (for example) petrol vs gasoline. It generally works pretty well. --John (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, plenty of that up there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Norway has a lot of contact with GB, British English is preferred in the country when it comes to writing. BP OMowe (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Other arguments which reach a different conclusion are that there has been significant immigration to the US in the 19th century and on. Regarding soldiering - our (Norwegian) soldiers are quite ethical we believe. And when our soldiers take prisoners in Afghanistan, we turn them over to the Americans, according to press reports. The press reports have not said that our soldiers are starstruck by the US military, but the reports have to a degree painted part of that picture.

An alternative to the idea of either British English or American English: Toss a coin about one of the two being used in the first half of the article; the last half can go to the other "language".
To offset the idea about British spelling (and culture) being so pervasive in Norway: our country has more hamburger joints then fish & chips shops. More Norwegians have studied in the US than in Britain.
The number of #1 hits for Sir Paul McCartney might say more about the lack of sophistication in the consumption of music in Norway, than our admiration of British culture in general. 46.212.144.205 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing article from Category:Neo-Nazis

Breivik's manifesto issues multiple condemnations of the Nazi movement, e.g. "I remain a staunch anti-Nazi and I blame NSDAP for the situation we are in... If the NSDAP had been isolationistic instead of imperialistic (expansionist) and just deported the Jews (to a liberated and Muslim free Zion) instead of massacring them, the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism would have never been institutionalized in Western Europe, because the Marxists would never have been so radicalized to begin with." 213.109.230.96 (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use primary source based original research. Although he says they made mistakes in that quote, he still operated from the same basic assumptions they held. During his trial, he identified neo-Nazis as influences on his thinking. Also, he had later explicitly self-identified as a national socialist. Just because he thinks that the original Nazis should have handled things a little differently doesn't mean that he thinks they were completely wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks quite clear, and might even warrant addition to the article, if it comes from a WP:RS. But it seems to contradict what is already reported in the article - about his intention to start a neo-Nazi party and what he said at his trial about being influenced by neo-Nazis. What's the source and date of that quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's from page 1435 (pdf page, anyway) of "2083," which recycles so much other work that that may or may not actually be his writing. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes. So primary source and not even very reliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Don't we have a notice when you try to edit the article basically saying "if you're citing 2083, don't bother"...? I remember we used to. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

... whoops. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If he's not a neo-Nazi, why did he give the Nazi salute in court on March 15? Sca (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Self identification is infinitely labile, and likely to produce crises of attribution for Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not infinitely labile, and killing 77 people is likely to produce crises of understanding for normal people (too). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In court on March 16, "Breivik, 37, told the judge ... that he would fight for National Socialism (Nazism) until the day he died." I suggest that the Category:Neo-Nazis is eminently appropriate for this individual. Sca (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit and 2016 trial

The "Lawsuit and 2016 trial" section is getting very detailed and very large. It may deserve its own article. We still have another full day to go. I've tried to reduce the sourcing of every nearly every individual sentence (to the same source) and have tried to remove and/or provide translations for the original Norwegian. Also added bullets. Not sure what else to suggest to try and make it less unwieldy. I think there is probably too much detail here. Wikipedia is not a news service. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's also a bit uneven. We now have a large gap on the last day, between 11.14 and 15.27, when the court was adjourned? Or is all of this material judged to be not significant? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there might not be too much about the 2016 trial, and yes the subject also deserves its own article. When its own article is in place, I will have some specific suggestions about what can be moved to other sections. Another way too shorten the article is to shorten the mention of his playstations and X-boxes; it seems that one is trying to paint the picture of a criminal being spoiled rotten, rather than a prisoner who is nearing a fifth year of not having been given the chance to interact face to face with one or more fellow prisoners - isolation by the order of the government. The European Court of Human Rights allows for a prisoner's human rights to be somewhat breached for some years, if concessions are made, such as extra visits. It is possible that one or more Norwegian courts will conclude that the government has been "a day late and a dollar short" in offering concessions for breaches of human rights, but that remains to be seen. 89.8.24.12 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the strangest items which maybe should not be removed, might be that he sees a military chaplain every other week; I have not seen any source that says that this is a concession that the government has granted him: After all he has never seen a day of service in the Norwegian Armed Forces. And then there is the prison visitor that the government has provided him with - an officer of the armed forces. He is apparently being treated like a lawful combatant. The phrase "You can't make up this shit", does not seem far off. 89.8.24.12 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Too dynamic interpretation

One regjeringsadvokat "warned against a too dynamic interpretation of EMK", and added that Norwegian courts must deal with the wording of the convention and concrete verdicts.

In layman's terms the warning might be reworded as "do not make an overreaching interpretation". The warning is about as unspecific as saying "It is important not to make any mistakes at work". The first part of the sentence might be a general observation, but the last part of the sentence is clearly obvious. 46.15.25.115 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References