Jump to content

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Innuendo about Breivik and hidden GPS coordinates

I don't see much diffence between the recent version and the following fictitious version:

"Norwegian computer security analysts were in 2011 in the process of researching what appear to be hidden pedo-phile activity codes in Breivik's manifesto, including references to the GPS coordinates of several major sites throughout Europe".

Recent version: "Norwegian computer security analysts were in 2011 in the process of researching what appear to be hidden codes in Breivik's manifesto, including references to the GPS coordinates of several major sites throughout Europe.("Experts try to decode Breivik's manifesto".)"

Both versions come across as a smear campaign~against Breivik. The paragraph from the "10:51, 28 March 2016‎"-version has been moved to discussion, until there is a rationale available for why he should be smeared on this point, nearly five years later. 89.8.239.64 (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Are there any references about hidden codes or GPS coordinates being an issue at the 2012 trial? 89.8.239.64 (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
When does the valid period for smearing Breivik run out? Is upi.com a WP:RS or not - you seem to be suggesting that it mounted a "smear campaign" against Breivik? But I'm not sure what exactly were these "major sites across Europe" that may or may not have been described by hidden GPS co-ordinates? Possible bomb sites or what? The article doesn't say. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
That's sort of how innuendo works: You are told one thing, and when you connect the dots, you question whether Breivik has pointed out potential "Possible bomb sites or what?" - in other European countries. So why should the innuendo above be perpetuated on wikipedia? 89.8.239.64 (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Are there any references indicating that the frequent anal inspections (as detailed in the 2016 trial) by the Correctional Services, have something to do with the search for GPS coordinates or triggering devices related to "major sites across Europe"? 89.8.239.64 (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, any connection there seems a little strained, to the say the least. Maybe, when the trial verdict has been fully digested, they'll bring out the nutcracker? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Breivik is only allowed to operate an egg cooker. For a nutcracker to come into play, first several of the six prison officers on every shift will need formal instructions on how Breivik will be permitted to use it. Perhaps it could be operated by the retired police officers - the ones who have been recommended (by a government employee) to drink coffee and play with Breivik, while these officers will be collecting an extra paycheck. 89.8.239.64 (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I guess he'll still be "doing bird". But come on now, have a heart. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Crimes involving Satanism or the occult

Why does it contain a category Crimes involving Satanism or the occult? Has Breivik every claimed to have been associated with any satanic ideology? The article does not say so. Tashi Talk to me 21:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nazism and occultism also looks unsupported? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't seem supported. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The closest I could see is his claims about the Templars and his expulsion from Freemasonry, but that's still stretching it a hell of a lot. Removed both. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

As there have been quite a few changes to the lead sentence in the article recently, I thought I ought to start discussion here. As I write this, the sentence is:

"Anders Behring Breivik [...] is a Norwegian terrorist, convicted for the 2011 Norway attacks."

I have taken into account differing views on the wording from editors' edit summaries (primarily that Breivik is only know for one terrorism event) so I think that the current choice is appropriate and accurate. There was use of a dash in the sentence, which I've removed as I think it disrupted the flow of reading. matt (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this actually only one person

The article says that Breivik is visited by "military chaplain every two weeks and also by a prison visitor who is a military officer (ranked major) and a theologian". Is it possible that this is actually only one person: a prison visitor that is a military chaplain (a theologian with the military rank of major). I think the only reference is from NRK journalists who attended the trial. Why would one during the trial only focus on the military rank of only one of the alleged two? Perhaps the two journalists got that point somewhat wrong, during the four days of trial? 178.232.55.137 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there's been a mistranslation from the original Norwegian along the way. But the NRK source says this: "I fengselet har Breivik svært lite kontakt med andre mennesker. Alle forespørsler om besøk blir avslått – den eneste han jevnlig treffer er en profesjonell besøksvenn. Etter det NRK kjenner til mottar Breivik besøk av en militærprest hver 14. dag bak en glassvegg." [my emphasis added] How does that translate exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Mini Abu Ghraib"

He has described his prison conditions as a "mini Abu Ghraib." 178.232.55.137 (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Is a controversial soundbite from Breivik notable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that it is not notable, and there is no mention of him being part of a human pyramid or hanging by his wrists from shackles on a wall. 178.232.55.137 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Unless there is significant coverage/ analysis by secondary sources, I'd agree it's not notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Confiscation of letters

"Politicians from several Norwegian parties have protested Breivik's activities in prison, which they see as him continuing to espouse his ideology and possibly encouraging further criminal acts.[1] The prison authorities have queried the Ministry of Justice on whether these activities, which Breivik terms as network building, can be perceived in the context of the terrorist acts he has committed and have received an affirmative reply from the ministry. This would mean that letters from Breivik may be confiscated.[2][3] The clause which authorises such measures contains the wording, "... if the package contains information on planning or execution of punishable offense, evasion of the execution or acts which will disturb peace, order, and security".[2]"

There is no mention of particular letters having been able to get through the censorship at the prison, so why should unspecific complaints from politicians be mentioned in the article? 178.232.55.137 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a notable topic of discussion by politicians? Surely this is the justification, at least in part, for the censorship regime? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. could you wait to make large scale changes to article content until after discussion, unless there is an obvious problem with sourcing, of other WP:BLP issue? Thanks.
There are no references of the prisons ever allowing these sorts of letters to slip thru the censorship. So what is notable about politicians in effect saying that Breivik should not be allowed to write a message on a piece of paper and stuffing a stamped envelope and then letting the ever-present censorship confiscate the letter? Possibly this is one of few topics that a politician can get name-recognition in advance of elections that are held every two years in Norway. What is notable about the prison asking the Justice department if their interpretation of the law is acceptable? That nitty-gritty probably does not belong in the Breivik article. 178.232.55.137 (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that your distrust of Norwegian politicians is a good enough reason to remove something that has been widely reported by the press and which has been part of the article for some time. So I'd argue to keep it in. But happy to hear the views of other editors before we decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
So you've just gone right ahead and removed the last three sentences, which was fully sourced, anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I would rather say that on the point about correspondence and book writing—the prison system has done everything by the book, and so has the Justice department, so what is notable about politicians' views about a regimen that shows no sign of being softened as far as dissemination of letters and books are concerned? This [3] is my latest edit regarding the matter. 178.232.55.137 (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't wholly disagree. But some readers might find that the detail there adds clarity. This is a quite a complex legal issue, after all. Martinevans123 (talk)

References

  1. ^ Brenna, Jarle; Utheim, Eric Brekstad; Grøttum, Eva-Therese (26 July 2012). "– Konstant trussel at Breivik får sende brev". Verdens Gang (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference VG-20120726 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Views and news was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Discrediting and ridiculing Breivik by mentioning playstations and torture in the same paragraph

"In the letter, he described the present conditions of his confinement as “torture.”[1]. Do we know enough of the context and the complete wording of the letters to the media outlets? He only gets to meet paid professionals that he has not invited, and none of the visitors that he invites get approved by the prison authorities (to come)—that's part of the context that is getting lost between "playstations" and "torture". 46.212.12.241 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

But they're facts aren't they? Where do suggest is a better location for the "torture" quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Two media outlets on the same day run the story about the letter with the 12 demands. The one outlet does not [4] mention "torture"—the other outlet mentions [5] "torture". Is this about the description of feelings a tortured soul or half-tortured soul, rather than the actual application of psyops-styled head games torture or the application of causing-instant-pain style torture? Since the one source is to vague about exactly what the alleged torture consists of, and since the other source does not mention the alleged torture, then i don't think that wikipedia has enough information to discern what acts are part of the alleged torture, and wikipedia does not have enough information as to how wikipedia's descriptions of torture might differ from the media's digested description of what Breivik wrote in his 12 point demand. 46.212.12.241 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
We're just reporting Breivik's own written words, from a reliable secondary source. We are neither obliged nor entitled to offer any analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
When two media outlets on the same day have overlapping stories about the 12 point demand, but do not overlap about the word "torture", then how can wikipedia ensure that Breivik's usage of "torture" is notable? To my knowledge the word "torture" was not an issue at the 2016 trial. Perhaps his present lawyer did a better job of prepping his client than his former lawyer (then elected office candidate, now city councilman) did. If the word "torture" should be mentioned then one should also mention how many times tortur was mentioned in the 2016 verdict. Not everything that Breivik has said to the authorities is notable on wikipedia. 46.212.213.245 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I think this word might illustrate the bias in Breivik's view of his own situation, i.e. it helps to show how he himself sees his situation. But I agree, if only one of two outlet sees it as notable, then it may not be. And yes, I would imagine his lawyer did the best job he could with such accusations. I'd certainly agree with your last point. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chu, Henry (18 February 2014). "Mass killer Breivik threatens hunger strike for better games and gym". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 February 2014.

Quisling-style nazism and one-man ceremony in prison

"On 15 March 2016 NRK claimed it "has knowledge of Breivik having conducted a ceremony, to mark his swearing allegiance to" Vidkun Quisling.[1]"

The article already is relaying Breivik's lawyers claim that Breivik converted to Nazism while in prison. Regarding the one-man ceremony in prison or any specific importance of Quisling-style Nazism—notability has not been demonstrated. 178.232.213.58 (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ NRK. "– Breivik vil sende et signal til venner og fiender". NRK. Retrieved 20 April 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

"Norway's worst job" and manipulation by government employees, the press or Breivik

  • "In December 2015 psychiatist Rosenqvist said that "The events of the last year has shown that Breivik acts with restraint [...] now an even longer period has passed in which he has behaved rather exemplary ". ("Dom" (PDF). p. 23-4. Retrieved 25. April 2016. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)</ref>)
  • "Guarding Breivik: Is this Norway's worst job?". thelocal.no.

I can not see that any of the smear in the second reference has been established in the 2016 court verdict. And it does contrast with what the court established in the verdict (see the first reference). Should point one be mentioned? Should reference two, and how it contrasts reference one, be mentioned in the wikipedia article? Should both be mentioned, or should none (for now)? 178.232.213.58 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Around two victims died one or two days later

When someone provides references that around two of the victims of 22 July actually died one or two days later, then the following is slightly untrue:

"On 22 July 2011, he killed eight people by detonating a van bomb amid the government quarter Regjeringskvartalet in Oslo, then shot and killed 69". 46.212.221.114 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Dhuhulow

@User2534: What about their commonalities is not achieved through the use of the Category:Norwegian mass murderers category? It seems to me that if their only commonality is nationality, the existing categorization is adequate. If they have commonalities other than nationality, these are presumably described in reliable sources; can you provide any? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you; the see also item is irrelevant, and I've removed it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Effective date of the appeal

I am not sure that today's version is correct about the 2016 appeal: I might have made a mistake. Now I am thinking that the appeal was made by the government way before 20 May. I am guessing that what happened on (or around) 20 May, was that the government completed the requirements for the appeal to fully recognized and accepted (by the judicial branch of the government). Please be on the lookout for a facsimilie of a future document (or from around 20 May) that says what is the "effective date" of the appeal. Am I the only one who is slightly uncomfortable that the article is not crystal clear on this (arguably important) point? 89.8.9.254 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Link to the document of 20 May [6]. 89.8.255.178 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Another murderer saying that he threw letters from Breivik

One media source [7] says that Peter Mangs threw letters from Breivik. The source does not spell out the following:

  • if Mangs answered any of those letters
  • if any of the envelopes were opened
  • motivation for throwing away (any envelope that was either unopened or opened)
  • how many months or minutes the envelopes were in Mangs possession
  • if Mangs disrespects and/or dislikes Breivik

Letters being thrown might be interesting for online newspapers, but for an encyclopedia such information might need clarifying on one or more of the points above. With no significant additional information, then I think the article can disregard that letters were thrown, because notability has not been demonstrated. 46.212.245.53 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Anders Behring Breivik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anders Behring Breivik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

he lost his appeal in 2017 re his human rights

I dont want to mess the article up so can someone more experienced in Wiki do this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:20d:1300:6126:aed1:a1cb:b1e (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any source for that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
http://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/europe/norway-anders-behring-breivik-appeal-european-court-human-rights-prison-isolation-neo-nazi-beliefs-a7779186.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/01/anders-breivik-not-treated-inhumanely-appeals-court-rules
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:20d:1300:6126:aed1:a1cb:b1e (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you please sign your two posts above, by adding four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Christian term in lead section

"The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",[38] but he is not "excessively religious"[38] and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".[38][237] His manifesto states "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", "
So he said that "he is not "excessively religious", and he said that he is not "very religious". 178.232.8.86 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

We generally do not use his manifesto as a source for anything here. I think articles tend to reflect the most recently expressed views that an individual has with regard to religious beliefs. Religious views are often hard to pin down to logic. But apart from that, it does seem that he holds conflicting views. Holding directly, or apparently, conflicting views might be an indicator of mental illness, of course. The medical assessments regarding possible psychosis are slightly conflicting but are, in any case, restricted to the times of the attacks themselves and the times of the psychiatric evaluations. So, in summary, I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter that Breivik has made contradictory statements about his religious views, as long as they are reported accurately here and are well sourced. I know this is slightly at odds with the desire of many editors at Wikipedia to be able to pigeon-hole people into one category or another. If categories have to be omitted here, as a result of contradictions, then so be it. Life is not always that simple, especially in the mind of a mass-murderer, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has it's own political agenda. Primary sources are non extisting. Makes sense - nearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.146.148.154 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed primary sourced aren't very loved and there is a discriminatory bias towards certain secondary sources against others. --105.11.40.247 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


Odinism - 2015 sources

The following two secondary sources identify Breivik as an Odinist:

In 2015 he stated that he considers himself "culturally Christian" but that he has never personally identified as a Christian, and called his religion Odinism.

There are sources from 2011 that promote speculation and conjecture about a manifesto, asserting that Breivik may be a possible Christian

There are two sources from 2015 that are a direct quote of the killer saying that he is not a Christian and that he is an Odinist.

Per WP:LABEL and WP:SYNTH, wikipedia should not synthesize speculation from 2011 about "cultural chrisitan" into the loaded label "Christian terrorist".

The conflicting evidence from 2015 should be presented later on in the lead section, rather than the first sencence pronouncing "Chrisitan terrorist" when later contradicted by claims of Odinism later in the lead section.

In the absence of clear, explicit declarations in reliable, secondary sources that expressly declare "Christian terrorist" then the phrase should not be used in the lead section due to contradictory evidence from 2015 that he is an Odinist.Note that the dagen.no source says that «kristen terrorist» is a dubious label (Nov 2015).

-- Callinus (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Also note, I don't have good sourcing, but there are limited articles saying that what Varg Vikernes is linked to is Neo-völkisch movements - the political pan-Germanic neo-paganism used as a form of ethnic nationalist - Neo-völkisch movements#Nordic racial paganism. Some blogs link Breivik's Odinist beliefs to earlier nordic racial paganism.

-- Callinus (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hansen

Shouldn't the article (not the title, but throughout the article) say his new last name? Cbswagman (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the first two words of the article, you could be right. But it might be much better to simply adopt a chronological split, as has been done with e.g. Muhammad Ali, to avoid contradicting very many sources and public perceptions. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Move to Fjotolf Hansen

Breivik has changed the his name to Fjotolf Hansen. The article should probably be moved to the new name. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:COMMONNAME apply? CodeCat (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Not yet - @CodeCat: The specific rule is WP:NAMECHANGES. I think the idea is that if a subject/thing changes its name then WE should change the name if and when RS starts using that new name. I don't really see that RS has started to use the new name yet. It may soon. But we should probably wait and see. NickCT (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
No. He is known by Anders Breivik. Commonname is in place. --Wester (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Breivik is notable for the murder of 77 people on 22 July 2011. At that time his name was Anders Breivik and he was subsequently convicted and imprisoned under that same name. No amount of later name-changing will change these simple facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Not yet. He's currently best known as Brekvik. If RS start using Hansen is a significant manner in coverage - then after some time, if the preponderance of sources are thus - also in regards tot he massacre - then an article name should be changed. Note that Chelsea Manning took a while (and frankly I don't think RSes should've rolled with that name change - but they did - probably because this was a transgender issue).Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
She is always known by her correct name, and using her deadname would be a deliberate and unnecessary insult. By contrast, nobody calls Breivik by the name he chose for no reason other than to troll us. He has not and never will do anything of the slightest note under the name Fjotolf. Correctrix (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, squish together the first two pairs of letters: Fj ot ｏｌｆ. The authorities would have rejected his application if he’d straight-up put ‘Adolf’, so he did this, and thinks he’s clever. It is Nazi propaganda that we shouldn’t let him get away with. Correctrix (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we add the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder to the opening paragraph?

In the opening paragraph it mentions that in the second evaluation Breivik was only diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. Considering that antisocial personality disorder is more associated with violence, wouldn't it be just as worthy of note, if not, more?

Currently : a second evaluation concluded that he was not psychotic during the attacks but did have narcissistic personality disorder.[1][2]

Proposed : a second evaluation concluded that he was not psychotic during the attacks but did have narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.[1][2]

Parafron-trodaí (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Parafron-trodaí

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Norway's mass killer Breivik 'declared sane'". BBC News. 10 April 2012. Retrieved 10 April 2012.
  2. ^ a b Lewis, Mark; Cowell, Alan (16 April 2012). "Norwegian Man Claims Self-Defense in Killings". New York Times. New York City: New York Times Company.

Name dropping

[8]. Yes, these people were mentioned in his "manifesto". But they were not really relevant to the crime judging from the cited sources. This is a WP:BLP problem with regard to people who were mentioned by Breivik. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I undid the removal. Copy of my edit summary: "WP:BLP is not applicable here: these are authors that searched the light for the writings mentioned here. To claim that the writers have nothing to do with the crime (as editor mentions on Talk page) is not relevant at all, since this section analyzes the compendium to the crime, not the crime itself.". Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
I suggested to remove the following: "Conservative blogger Pamela Geller,[213] Neo-pagan writer Koenraad Elst[215] and Daniel Pipes are also mentioned as sources of inspiration.[216] The manifesto further contains quotes from Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell,[217] as well as from Jeremy Clarkson's Sunday Times column and Melanie Phillips' Daily Mail column.[218] The publication speaks in admiration of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Bruce Bawer, Srđa Trifković,[219] and Henryk M. Broder.[220]". I think that's undue. Why it matters so much who he quoted or liked? Cited sources do not explain the significance of this for the crime (that is what he is known for. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Between your edit summary and your comment it looks like you think there's a BLP problem with Thomas Jefferson but that can't be. So please explain very clearly the BLP problem with the content your deleted. 109.99.99.2 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree: this is sourced. However, not every sourced bit of information should be included to WP. See this. This content is simply undue on the page. Consider a typical BLP of a person, let's say a scientist. Do we normally provide a list of everything he cited? Of course not. We do not normally provide even the complete list of his own writings. Same is here. The cited sources do not explain why this is so important that he cited Orwell or whoever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
And BTW, section "Religious and political views" also needs to be trimmed down. Most of that is relevant, but some parts are not. Will do it later. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • P.S. Basically, providing a long list of notable people who he allegedly "admires" or "cited" glorifies the subject of the page, lionizes him. That is not what we want to do. Speaking in terms of his political views, he is just a marginal, nobody. He is notable only for mass murder. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Even among fascist circles, he's not exactly known as an important read. He's nothing more than a far right terrorist - and those are a dime a dozen. The only thing interesting about him is his high body count and the fact that he was cowardly enough to murder children. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Rv, not being as bad as the Islamic state doesn't mean someone convicted of terrorism and described by RS as a terrorist isn't a terrorist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Why the sketch

Don't we have any actual pictures of breivik rather than some computerized sketch ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CA:8200:34A:3DC0:8421:5200:8BE0 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we have. But people refuses to change it because people that wrote this page is fan og Behring Breivik and doesn't want to let us see how he looks today; fat and bald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.206.106 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Odds are that any modern photographs are copyrighted, so in any case, the portraits he had in his manifesto could be used, right? It should fall under fair use. Not sure, though. 180app (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't the "sketch" fall under original research? -- Veggies (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This is literally dealt with in the article you've linked (no, it's not OR). EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Name change to Fjotolf

I am just curious to understand why the article is not renamed Fjotolf Hansen, which this man legally changed his name to in 2017. As far as I am aware, Bradley Manning changed her name to Chelsea Manning, and the Wikipedia page changed too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning

So what is the official Wikipedia protocol, does a name change need to include a sex change, or is it not recognised if a prisoner does it? Thank youTerminatorXtotheEdgeofPanic (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious why someone who has a problem with us debunking an antisemitic canard is so worried about how we handle those two articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I've just finished reading his manifesto, and in it he says that we need to win the battle of Wikipedia editing to push our point of view (and not those of the cultural marxists like yourself) so that's why i'm just asking questions on here, thanks for your understanding Wikipedia friend!TerminatorXtotheEdgeofPanic (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME, been discussed before. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Anders abusive mother and failure to put him into foster care

I don't really find this article to be right. Everyone is described as the victim of Anders. But what has to be remembered is the Anders was the victims of a heavily emotionally and psycologicaly (probably also sexually) abusive mother. And had the Child Welfare Services not been that ineffective he would have been placed into foster care between age 2-4 and had had a chance at a normal life. If Norway learned anything from all of this, then it is that Barnevernet is now internationally known for taking children away that are at risk of being abused rather then abandoning them and leaving them in the care of their abusive parents. Which is a very good thing. And this should be known internationally as well. Anders developed into being a serial killer because of his terrible mother. His mother in turn had also been abandoned by her community, family and Child Welfare Services and had a horrible childhood as well. It is important to take care of the children of your nation in order to avoid disasters like his. I also really despise how his mother is portrayed in this article as a victim of him. She was clearly a perpetrator. --Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 12:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you really want a solution: "One Kuda Without Company", as monotheism teaches. I do believe this requires some thinking on absolute rules. Breivik seems also to symbolize having the aids illness. His name change seems to imply "I am sorry". And also questions if he rather should be lobotomized. Old Zyr customs would indicate a lobotomy longer back, while the islamic "Kuda" signifies everything we want in politics these days. Incl. this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:781F:1A82:338:D2B7 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

When reading the current article (as of August 2020), my impression was that it expands too much on those childhood events as well as on the prison condition rights trial. It is likely that the article was expanded as news were being released and that with retrospection it could be better summarized... As for the recent IP address editor's comment, I didn't see any mention of lobotomy and suggest to post sources here that could serve to update the article if necessary. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Prison condition rights trial, needs to be forked out before summarising. See [9]. 89.8.121.26 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Forking out the least important details of civil trial against the government (2016-2017)

After someone forks out the "Civil trial against Norway's government" section, one can start streamlining the current article by changing the beginning of that section:

"During 15—18 March 2016, Breivik sued Norway's government was the plaintiff in a civil trial. The Ministry of Justice and Public Security was the defendant in court, since the Correctional Service (which was being sued) was su bordinate to the ministry. The verdict was appealed; the appellate court rendered its verdict, and the supreme court decided not to hear the case."

(Text should be forked into a title such as Anders Behring Breivik's civil trial against Norway's government.) 89.8.121.26 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Mother section

I've tagged a huge section on Breivik's mother and likely child abuse because it all originated from one source. The material is covered far more succinctly where it should be, in his early life section. Should this additional section be removed? Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Should this additional section be removed"? For now I think it should stay. 89.8.139.117 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Would someone care to pull the plug on frivolous-wikiClaims (KGB colonel - paramilitary training camp in Belarus)?

"A contrary view, on website Decryptedmatrix.com (in 2012), claimed that Belarusian opposition figure Mikhail Reshetnikov is claiming that Breivik underwent paramilitary training in a camp organised by retired KGB colonel Valery Lunev. According to Reshetnikov, Breivik visited Belarus three times and had lasting connections with the country."

This stuff likely aint adequate for "the wikipedia project started by Jimbo Wales". Someone - please put the article out of its misery! 89.8.181.23 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing the above paragraph from the article: Will that be acceptable, if one adds the following edit remark, "That is not an acceptable source for wikipedia".
@Jlevi: - have you already commented, more or less, about the above source? Regards! 89.8.89.25 (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Yeah, you are totally, totally right to question this source. Thanks so much for bringing it up. IF you see something like this in the future, please feel free to remove it--it's just so aggressively bad. Given that that terrible source seems to have been in the article for a while, I should probably go through other sources as well. Oh well. Thank you for pointing it out! Jlevi (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks User:Jlevi for having removed aggressively bad source! 89.8.139.117 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Of any importance to the rest of the wiki-article? A mother's alleged talk about girls pee-holes (within an apartment)

So a "young couple", that was young in the 1980s, talked to police after the 2011 murders.

The source does not say, that the following was any indication of sexual abuse (rather than a mother's odd attempt at commenting about the boy not having male role-models or whatever, in the home).

'Breivik was then placed [by authority of the Child Welfare Service,] with a young couple. This couple later told police that the mother, when bringing two-year-old Breivik to the house, had asked that he be allowed to touch the man's penis because he had no one to compare himself to in terms of appearance; "He only saw [or was used to seeing girls' pee holes—] jentetisser", the mother told the couple, according to the couple's statement [in 2011 or 2012] to police'.

Source: https://www.tv2.no/a/8142855/. Retrieved 9 April 2021.

Does the paragraph have any importance for the rest of the wiki-article?

Are there valid arguments for us saying, "Nevertheless, one sees value of keeping this information in the article - however isolated the information might seem"? 89.8.103.8 (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(One is not arguing the importance of keeping, "Breivik was then placed [by authority of the Child Welfare Service,] with a young couple."). 89.8.103.8 (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Cruising for getting kicked out of the lede (or is the kick overdue)?

"While still a juvenile, he was arrested [for spraying paint on a wall], and was consequently rejected from not conscripted into the Norwegian Armed Forces. At the age of 20 he joined [a politcial party], the anti-immigration/right-wing Progress Party, and chaired the local Vest Oslo branch of the party's youth organization during 2002. He left the Progress Party in 2006 and went on to join a gun club, while also founding a company which he used to finance his planned terrorist attacks."

Looks like, walks like, and quacks like cherrypicking. 89.8.79.123 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Improved version [10], which addresses some flaws. 89.8.90.74 (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Height (anyone, please remove from infobox)

Suggested justification for anyone that removes "Height" from infobox: "His height is not mentioned in the article itself", or "There are no sources present, that indicate that his height contributed to the body count of his crimes", or "Notability (of height) not shown". 89.8.78.46 (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith regarding other wikipedia users

The following type of edit remark, arguably leaves room for improvement: "remove hidden comment adding vandalism". @Werkenone: 89.8.100.33 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Puffery in the lede (a rhetoric-using Nazi that supports nationalists)

Is he also a wiki-notable rhetorician? (Expo (magazine) might not be a good enough source to indicate wiki-notability in regard to rhetoric.)

He is a Nazi and that's mentioned in the lede. Why should puffery remain in the lede, regarding "support ethno-nationalists"? (Having in the lede, a shortlist of Nazi groups that he supports - that might be a similar sort of puffery that the lede does not need.)

Suggested move to discussion:

"and uses counterjihadist rhetoric to support ethno-nationalists". 89.8.94.166 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Both texts deleted from article since they are already moved to discussion here. Werkenone (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"practices Odinism" (move from lede - to other section)

While in prison, Breivik's religion allegedly has changed from whatever - to Odinism.
It arguably is reasonable to move "Odinism" out of the lede, and into some other section. 89.8.94.62 (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"van bomb", car bomb (or truck bomb)

In August 2021 the lede of the article was changed from van bomb to "car bomb". Please anyone, put "van bomb" back into the lead (and then feel free to take further issue to the talk page, regarding if the article should call the 3.5 ton cargo van (that has a cabin that arguably is isolated from the cargo room), a car). @Werkenone: 89.8.179.219 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as "von" in German, "van" means honorifics in Dutch like van Dessel [van Bomb], so let's say it differently. IP special:Contributions/89.8.0.0/16 once and for all, please stop placing <-- XXX --> comments in any and all articles, PLEASE remove desired content directly. WP:BEBOLD. Werkenone (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a misunderstanding that "von" or "van" would indicate noble descent. In the vast majority of cases it simply indicates some ancestor was born in, or moved from, some village or town.--MWAK (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Law mandates that prisoners must be indicted again, if prosecuting authority rejects parole

Source [11] from 2022 that explains that Norwegian law mandates that prisoners in preventive detention, who have been refused parole must be indicted again. 84.48.174.53 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


Testimony in 2022

Has he on January 18 denied responsibility or not? Does media's experts think that his answer on that point, is ambiguous?

  • He testified today (at 14:29) that he committed the acts "to the degree that I let myself get radicalised, and that is to a certain degree my fault".

Original quote, according [12] to NRK: "– Jeg som menneske utførte handlingene i den grad at jeg lot meg radikalisere, og det er til en viss grad min skyld".
I am not convinced that his whole testimony contains one major (and clear) idea about him having much guilt for the massacre/terrorism in 2011. Some other RS will chime in. 89.8.89.15 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Style

Excessively wordy and not very easy to read. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Moved to discussion:

  • "On the way to his first jail meeting, Breivik's police escort was met with an angry crowd, some of whom shouted abuse".[3][4][5]"
    Arguably nothing notable happened: Shouting at 2-3 cars passing by, has non-obvious notability. The convoy of 2-3 cars was not stopped by any crowd or individual. (However, on at least one day, at least one person was able to hit (with his hand, cirka one time) the side of one of the 2-3 cars in the convoy that was driving by. 89.8.89.15 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)89.8.89.15 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.nrk.no/norge/_-breivik-vil-sende-et-signal-til-venner-og-fiender-1.12854820
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference sksoker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Andresen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference nrk1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "Norway police say 84 killed in Utoeya shooting". Reuters. 23 July 2011. Retrieved 23 July 2011. R. Andresen: "We have no more information than ... what has been found on (his) own websites, which is that is goes toward the right (wing) and that it is, so to speak, Christian fundamentalist."

Please anyone, remove

  • " the trial [had been] scheduled for 3 days, and a fourth day [was] scheduled as a possible extra day [if needed]".
    Justification: The trial ended on the third day (and that is referenced in the article). The rest of the information is of little consequence - in any. 89.8.158.98 (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)89.8.158.98 (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please anyone, replace

  • "At the start of the trial, Breivik gave "several Nazi salutes also directed at" the judge; Breivik gave a Nazi salute to [the members of the public in the courtroom or] listeners - mostly journalist."

  • Replace with: "At the start of the trial, Breivik gave several Nazi salutes.
    Comment - Anyone has my support to make that replacement. Justification: Nazi salutes are not illegal in that country. No police report has been made regarding threatening gestures in court, towards the judge (or the three judges). 89.8.158.98 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Has not registered (any) political party; His trial testimony in regard to his occupation

He has not registered any political party (yet) (as of his trial testimony in 2022). Furthermore he says that his occupation is: candidate for parliamentary elections, in regard to an (unnamed) Nazi party.
If one wants to say more than that - then there have to be sources to back that up; for now the wiki-article does not have inline sourcing for saying more than that. 89.8.118.74 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Move to discussion (and somebody can fork it on out)

Please anyone, be bold and move to discussion, the following

  • "Previously, in September 2020, an application for Breivik's parole was made by his attorney, Øystein Storrvik. As of July 2021, Breivik has been in prison for ten years, granting him the right to have the court system review his petition for parole.[1]"

    If and when someone moves the above text to this talk page, then someone else can later move these details to any new relevant article.--The issue about parole, is clear enough in other parts of the article. 89.8.88.119 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.88.119 (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1] "Det opplyser massemorderens forsvarer, advokat Øystein Storrvik til VG. – Jeg har på vegne av ham sendt inn en begjæring om prøveløslatelse, sier Storrvik til VG. – Han har krav på domstolsprøving av prøveløslatelse ved minstetid som er ti år i hans tilfelle. "

"Directorate of the Corrections Service"

Authorities in relevant news today: Kriminalomsorgsdirektoratet (KDI). Source: NRK at 11.59 today.--Stuff that deals with Breivik, is (arguably) normally presented to media by underlying agencies.--However, I don't think we need the name of the agency etc. in regard to the events from today, that the article mentions.89.8.88.119 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.88.119 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Should be simplified?

  • "Previously, between the inception of SHS, in 2002, and 2016 Norway had only imprisoned ten or eleven[1] prisoners under these conditions, of which Breivik's term has been the longest.[2][3]"

    One could maybe say something like:
    "As of 2016, nobody had served longer under SHS prison conditions; he still has (as of 2022) the same conditions.[4]

    Even simpler:
    "As of 2022, nobody has served longer under SHS prison conditions - which were new conditions in 2002 (well before Breivik's murders)."
    89.8.172.54 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ NRK (10 March 2016). "Norge har aldri evaluert Breiviks soningsregime" [Norway has never evaluated Breivik's regimen of imprisonment]. NRK. Retrieved 28 April 2016.
  2. ^ "Dom" (PDF). p. 12. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 April 2016. Retrieved 25 April 2016.
  3. ^ "Prisons in Norway". Life in Norway. 20 October 2018. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  4. ^ Note: "Previously, between the inception of SHS, in 2002, and 2016 Norway had only imprisoned ten or eleven (source: NRK (10 March 2016). "Norge har aldri evaluert Breiviks soningsregime" [Norway has never evaluated Breivik's regimen of imprisonment]. NRK. Retrieved 28 April 2016.) prisoners under these conditions, of which Breivik's term has been the longest.(sources: "Dom" (PDF). p. 12. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 April 2016. Retrieved 25 April 2016.) "Prisons in Norway". Life in Norway. 20 October 2018. Retrieved 23 March 2019.)"

WP:NOTNEWS

Since the hearing started, I see that one or multiple users (it's unclear because anon) have been updating the article frequently regarding the events. Please don't do that - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It's also not a transcript. While some of the content is encyclopaedic, most of it isn't. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary - most of the content is encyclopaedic (if not all).--Developments since your post of January 22: Breivik lost one "parole trial" in 2022. However, the wiki-article has sourced that he will not be in any courtroom for the next two years [no matter what happens to his appeal regarding the "parole trial"].--If these perspectives are of help to you, then fine. 89.8.172.54 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mistaken reporting in 2022 about a a "stone's throw" etc.

The prison that he is scheduled to be moved to - on a day that the public will not have advance information about - is not a "stone's throw away from Utøya".--There is a plan that Breivik will be moved from Skien Prison; for now I don't think we need that information about distances - and possibly not ever. 89.8.88.119 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The distance between Utøya and Ringerike Prison (transferred there yesterday), is around [13] 10 kilometers. 89.8.64.104 (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian Zionist?

Someone has added the category Norwegian Zionist. I'm not going to revert as I'm new to Wikipedia but I really don't think that this is correct? Would someone with more knowledge of WP policy please take a look? Knitsey (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, the article says 'The Jerusalem Post describes his support for Israel as a "far-right Zionism"'. Needs a source, but there I guess is where it is. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply jpg. Knitsey (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Have a waffle?

Waffling text?

Do we really need so much detail about his beliefs, connections, activities, etc.?

Page sizes:

— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The length is probably because of recentism. I think the sections about his childhood and the 2016 civil suit are given unduly heavy coverage. If there's so much to say about his childhood and the 2016 suit, it probably belongs in forks, not in this article - especially when the coverage about the crime itself is so minimal. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 13:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the two posters. (However, feel free to create spin-off articles. Two specific spin-off articles have been proposed, it seems.)--If some are worried about the size of the main article, then consider keeping stuff out of the article, when stuff gets shaved, in small increment-whatevers.--Here's what I shaved today, from this main article.--Yeah, when there is a spin-off article, then it might be somewhat easier to slowly shave stuff (out of the main article). 2001:2020:8317:D49F:BF:4F06:C52A:8C10 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:8317:D49F:BF:4F06:C52A:8C10 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved out of article - waiting for spin-off article about 2016 trial

Moved out of article - waiting for spin-off article about 2016 trial (where the moved info might belong):
"Breivik talked about the parties NFP and NL; he said that those later changed name to ["Nordic State" or] Nordiske stat. "<ref name="sksoker" /> --Justification: "Re: In Breivik's imagination there exist a political party. The non-important info, hereby moved to talk page, waiting to become part of spin-off article. Rmv 2001:2020:8317:D49F:A8B4:361D:AB95:D2EB (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:8317:D49F:A8B4:361D:AB95:D2EB (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:8317:D49F:A8B4:361D:AB95:D2EB (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  • "In 2012, Breivik planned to set up an organisation he called the Conservative Revolutionary Movement which he envisioned consisting of around 50 right-wing activists in Europe, as well as an organization for imprisoned right-wing activists; Breivik has written to, among others, Peter Mangs and Beate Zschäpe.[9][10] In 2012, he spent 8–10 hours per day writing. He has said that he wants to write three books: the first being his own account of the events on the day of the attacks, the second discussing the ideology underlying his actions, and a third on his visions for the future.[11][12]--Justification: This article does not need all his grandiose dreams/envisioning, from the time of his first 11 years in prison (while isolated from other prisoners, except for an average of around c. one-hour every year). 2001:2020:431D:F304:D58C:5CA2:77ED:DC85 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Can this be moved to talk page (while waiting for a spin-off article to be created)?

  • "In 2012, Breivik planned to set up an organisation he called the Conservative Revolutionary Movement which he envisioned consisting of around 50 right-wing activists in Europe, as well as an organization for imprisoned right-wing activists; Breivik has written to, among others, Peter Mangs and Beate Zschäpe.[13][10] In 2012, he spent 8–10 hours per day writing. He has said that he wants to write three books: the first being his own account of the events on the day of the attacks, the second discussing the ideology underlying his actions, and a third on his visions for the future."[11][12]--Justification: that text, only seems to describe dreams (or aspirations) that belong to Breivik. In addition, there are facts about him having sent at least one letter to two different (named) right-wing imprisoned terrorists.--Misery loves company: he has sent letters to "criminal somebodies" (my quote); however, there is no text that demonstrates that the letters have notable content; not even claims about the letters claiming anything about anybody being starstruck etc. 2001:2020:4347:EFBB:31DA:9690:2C67:C407 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I can see no justification for any spin-off article. Breivik is notable for his crimes, not for his beliefs or for letters he's been sending. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to create a "spin-off stub" or spinoff-article, then notable sources (that are independent), do exist.--A (possible) Deletion-discussion would thereafter rule if any specific spinoff-article which might be created about Breivik - is a non-notable topic.--Personally, i am remotely interested regarding the flavor-of-the-decade regarding Breivik and his views about Odinism or which religious figures Breivik might consider pathetic (at any given point in time). However, it has already been (de facto) established that all notable information about Breivik, will not be put into only one wiki-article. (We might be at 2 articles now - not counting the "2011 Norway attack article".)--Regarding wiki-notability of letters to and from Breivik: media has printed facsimile of various letters from Breivik. Media has also told about a wiki-notable Swedish imprisoned right-wing terrorist who has "thrown out" letters from Breivik.--Politicians were scared about Breivik's letter-writing, and turned the screws on that.--During trial, an authority within the government, had a view that Breivik was not permitted/able to receive letters from contacts that he has tried to approach for the first time, after "Breivik's day of terrorism" (my quote).--AndyTheGrump and I seem to have different views, regarding possibly new stubs (or articles). 2001:2020:4307:C2BA:DDE3:4880:7ED5:8D9 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
No spin-off article(s) required, this page is too long and goes into far too much trivial detail. Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference sksoker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Kilnes, Camilla (17 March 2016). "Har ikke full oversikt over alle brevene til og fra Breivik". Adressa.no. Retrieved 9 February 2022.
  3. ^ "Breiviks søksmål mot Staten". Nrk.no. 23 October 2015.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ [2] "Det opplyser massemorderens forsvarer, advokat Øystein Storrvik til VG. – Jeg har på vegne av ham sendt inn en begjæring om prøveløslatelse, sier Storrvik til VG. – Han har krav på domstolsprøving av prøveløslatelse ved minstetid som er ti år i hans tilfelle. "
  6. ^ a b "Nytt avslag: Pressen får ikke bli med inn på cellen til Breivik". VG. 8 March 2016. Retrieved 20 April 2016.
  7. ^ "Lukkede dører under ABB-rettssak – NRK Nyheter". Nrk.no. 8 March 2016. Retrieved 26 March 2016.
  8. ^ "Har rekonstruert Breiviks Ila-celler – NRK Norge – Oversikt over nyheter fra ulike deler av landet". Nrk.no. 14 March 2016. Retrieved 26 March 2016.
  9. ^ The newspaper Verdens Gang reported on 26 July 2012
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference expressen1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Brenna, Jarle; Utheim, Eric Brekstad; Grøttum, Eva-Therese (26 July 2012). "Breivik sender brev til høyreekstreme støttespillere. Ber om hjelp til å fortsette kampen" [Breivik sends letters to extreme right-wing supporters. Requests assistance to continue the struggle]. Verdens Gang (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 29 July 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
  12. ^ a b Berglund, Nina (26 July 2012). "Breivik sets up conservative network". Views and News from Norway. Archived from the original on 30 July 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
  13. ^ The newspaper Verdens Gang reported on 26 July 2012

lead too long

should be 4 paragraphs per the mos toobigtokale (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

description

where it says 'Anders Breivik is a Norwegian far-right wing terrorist' @ tha beginning of tha article, may we please add is a 'far-right wing terrorist & a neo-Nazi', cuz he has said that he was a neo-Nazi? Monkeylady999 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Suing the Government (launched August 2023)

He is not suing the Correctional Service.--Not sure that this wiki-article has yet explained how the Correctional Service formally gets involved.--I will inform this talk page, if sources pop up that are illuminate that part of the process. 46.15.118.28 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Assets currency conversion wrong?

Two quotes from the article:

"His declared assets in 2007 were about NKr 630,000 (US$76,244)"

".. in 2009 and his assets amounted to 390,000 kroner ($72,063)"

I'm trying to make sense of this, any help? 77.169.177.105 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

One USD has been worth less than 5 NOK, at times. One USD has also been worth more than 10 NOK, at other times.--The numbers could possibly be okay. 46.15.118.28 (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Andersnordic" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Andersnordic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 11 § Andersnordic until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Emailed his manifesto to whom?

"On the day of the attacks, Breivik emailed a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, describing his militant ideology." -> Seems important to know who he emailed, and looks weird this way. Douweziel (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

he emailed it to hundreds of people. 2001:2020:343:AEED:A5FE:4639:1ECA:A0A2 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
he emailed it to 1000 people before the spam filter of his mailing programme stopped the rest (cf. Seierstad, Asne. En av oss. 2015.) 92.194.63.168 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
too many ppl to list but im sure theres a list out there. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, and the article might have a note, that says what kinds of people where on the 'first one thousand recipients' list. Politicians and ...? 46.15.98.20 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC) I am guessing that there is no complete list, that has been made public. However, I seem to remember that many news sources have each mentioned one handful of recipients, and then another media outlet has mentioned another handful of recipients.--I am guessing that I have seen the names of half a dozen or a dozen recipients (but I have no source, and do not recall any of the names for now.). Names published in newspapers, might be only a few dozen. 46.15.98.20 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) / 46.15.98.20

Tears, and "12 years since the last time Breivik cried in court"

According to Dagbladet, journalist Martine Aurdal, Breivik cried in court 12 years (before 2024). The source says that then when Breivik cried, "he became touched by his own propaganda-movie, that was shown during the terror-trial after "July 22".--My point is that the one of the 2024 trial's main narrative seems to have become that 'none of the government witnesses has ever seen Breivik cry'.--Without trying to sound insensitive, the 2024 trial section, should maybe not focus on '69 tears in heaven, but none from Breivik' etc.--If this post is regarded as helpful, then fine.--I am not sure yet, that the sources are only saying that 'no one really thinks that Breivik has showed any remorse in 2024, even though some commentators think that they saw a few tears'. But the wind might sort of be blowing in that direction.--Source (about tears, 12 years ago): www.dagbladet.no/meninger/ingen-grater-med-breivik/80793496, Retrieved today. 46.15.98.20 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 trial

WAY too much detail about the 2024 trial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thursday and Friday are the last days, before the court adjourns. Just sayin'.--Meanwhile, please look out for sources that say that, Breivik always looses his trials, and then the authorities gets some of its own teeth pulled - and shortly after each trial/final-verdict the authorities have a major cleanup of sanctions against Breivik.--Breivik has never been furloughed or released, so those sanctions are in no way - up for discussion, one might say. 46.15.98.20 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Another thing, different Norwegian media outlets weight things quite differently.--I hope that OP will not be *disappointed*, when information gets moved - line by line - to the talk page.--It's only day three of the trial, and government witnesses are saying things such as, that Breivik regards his captors as family members (while they are getting a paycheck to supervise Breivik). Priceless stuff of that ilk, is not the first stuff that i will be moving to the talk page.--Another thing: keep in mind the Streisand effect: if one makes a big stink about a non-problem (or minor problem), then a case might not develop into something that takes on a life of its own.--The talk pages of this article has so far "landed" the article into something that a silent majority of wikipedians are somewhat satisfied with.--Good news, the 2024 trial is not dealing with which computer games Breivik is playing: so if anyone gives a hoot about if Breivik is still playing Rayman Evolotion (or whatever that program is called), then i expect that the 2024 trial Section, will have no answers. 46.15.98.20 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Correction: "if one makes a big stink about a non-problem (or minor problem), then a case might not develop into something that takes on a life of its own". 46.15.99.40 (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Translating the word lederperson

I am assuming that the English translation of the word, might stay in the article. (The word was said by one of the prison official on Day 3 of the trial in 2024.)--'Some sort of leader-figure' is not really what is being said--For now, the closest translation might be "someone in the category of leadership".--The word, i think, could be used to describe someone who one is not sure if is a leader (of an organisation), but on the surface it seems that perhaps the person is a leader (of an organisation).--Anyway, translating to "leader figure", would be going to far, i feel; i am guessing that the witness knows other precise words for various kinds of 'leader-type people'.--Note: some words have been in use for decades, but might not be in any major dictionaries.--The word has been around for decades, and i would say that it has not changed its meaning (for that time).--Conclusion: "leader figure", was not what the witness said.--If this post was helpful, then fine. 46.15.99.40 (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Leader-like figure, is what I have landed at, for now. 46.15.96.109 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

RedCross-dog and the judge's some questions

On (the middle of) Day 4, the judge had some questions for Breivik about the woman with the petting-dog or RedCross-dog.--The question was not if the government had brought in a woman (with a dog), to make the man's juices flow, or make the man hot-to-trot.--The newspaper's view is that Breivik tried to chat her up (and she revealed that she is not single, and has kids).--For now, I am not seeing that the commentators are making much of the RedCross-dog etc and the judge's question.--Seems that no priceless testimony to see, right here, for now.--Source, Nettavisen, nettavisen.no/nyheter/breivik-saksoker-staten/s/5-95-1557595. 46.15.96.109 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

One should consider looking for references that say, the court (of public opinion) says that the stroking-the-fur-of-the-pet lasted only 10 minutes, and then one (or more things happened which the court considers out-of-character for a person that has been kept in a 'concentration camp' for c. 11 years) : It is unlikely that the prisoner was disappointed with the 'un-Nazi appearance etc' of the Golden Retriever dog, or Labrador dog.--The same court finds that there were no other disappointments about the dog.--The same court finds no literature of a person's senses being overwhelmed (sensory overload) - and then starting to chit-chat with a new (human) face that has appeared at the village's square (or at the prison camp's center).--For now, I think it is okay to source that the judge asked Breivik questions about the dog-petting.--It might also be okay to source that the stroking-the-fur lasted for "... ten minutes". 46.15.96.43 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Move out of lede?

"Breivik announced that he did not recognize the legitimacy of the court and therefore did not accept its decision—he decided not to appeal, saying this would legitimize the authority of the Oslo District Court".--Can all this stuff be moved out of the lede? (I, for one, am fine with move.) 46.15.96.152 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, it's detail that doesn't belong in the lede. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What kind of a sentence is this below ie why is it written as if clarification is added to a quote?

"The verdict [was] appealed [and a final verdict exists], and Breivik and his lawyer [launched] a lawsuit (in a non-Norwegian court) regarding the conditions of his imprisonment and alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, [and the last-mentioned lawsuit, was not heard in court]."

Can something be done to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.252.223 (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Why are all the square brackets there? Are they commmentary? Corrections? Whatever the case, they really should be removed. --Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik/Archive_8&oldid=1235979293"