Talk:Trial of Anders Behring Breivik

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Police still investigating in full – is that unusual?

One week before the trial begins it is reported that "police are still investigating the case in full".[1] Is this unusual? Should it be mentioned in this article? __meco (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't cite any sources, but I don't think it is the norm. However, I don't think it is that unusual either, especially in big cases. As far as I know the trial dates on all court cases in Norway are set at an early stage, before the police might have had any possibility to finish their evidence gathering, especially if it is a big case. If it is a relatively minor case then it is of course fairly easy and quick to gather evidence. Since you speak Norwegian you can always search Norwegian newspapers for texts that imply "ennå ikke ferdig med å samle bevisene" and variants words of this. Or maybe Statistisk Sentralbyrå, Politiet, Domstoladministrasjonen, or Justisdepartementet have some kind of statistics. -Laniala (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Fjordman be described as "anti-Islamic"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought "Islamist" referred to proponents of political Islam. Fjordman is clearly opposed to Islam in general. --Tshloab (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nazi salute"

Breivik's salute wasn't a "nazi salute", that's just the ignorant media talking bullshit. He describes in the manifesto that he's invented it as a templar salute and that it is modelled on leftist salutes. --129.16.190.128 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's changed as "righ wing salute". A closed fist salute (communist one) is now a right wing salute only because the media is keeping on this idiocy? Wikipedia, anyone here with a brain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.236.27.35 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We base our edits on information published by reliable sources. If you can present a reliable source which contradicts the currently referenced text, that could be added to the article. __meco (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment

Uploaded the English version of the indictment, if it should be of interest. -Laniala (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press alt-shift-c and add it. __meco (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Day One" - "First Day" not a good idea !

The way things were changed, we now will have on the last day: "Fiftieth day" instead of day 50. Does anyone else think it should now be changed back to Day 1... Day 50? Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have changed it unilaterally but please anyone explain why have "first...tenth...thirty-eighth day"Eugene-elgato (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the entire system with a section for every day needs to be reconsidered. By the time the trial is over, we will have 50 sections for each day if this continues, which is really quite excessive. Wikipedia is not a news service, and what was said on whay day is probably the kind of detail we should avoid. I think broader sections such as "Opening statements" and "Breivik's testimony" are more appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i know... it's not a blog or anything... but for now, just to get the detail in, and then work with what we've got, perhaps it's helpful? at least for wikipedians? otherwise we will lose all the details in the history of the news, and no-one will have the inclination to go after all that information nor would we know what we have to work with to begin with, before working with itEugene-elgato (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

schedule

It would be informative if the article included the schedule for the trial. Belorn (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the trial stopped ? GrahamHardy (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any scehdule anywhere, unfortunately. It would indeed be very useful.

The updates in the article of the progression of the trial has stopped, which makes the article look a bit weird at the moment. But I am sure someone will fix it one day. ;-) Njardarlogar (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a schedule in Norwegian here. Njardarlogar (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been updated for a while, but the trial is certainly ongoing. The last days testimony has been heard from the survivors at Utøya. There is also a controversy surrounding the second psychiatric report that the board "took into account", but did not formally accept or reject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was confidentiality waived

Did ABB waive confidentiality in regard to public statements made by the surgeon who performed ABB's nose operation? --Vistamesa (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of "forvaring"

The BBC article from the 24th translates "forvaring" as 'preventive detention', whereas the official webpages of the Oslo District Court translates it as 'permanent detention'. Yet, at another place, it has also used 'preventive detention'. Which translation should be used? Njardarlogar (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "preventive detention". "Permanent detention" is worse because forvaring is by default time limited, and there needs to be a court order to extend it. Since the extension can only be five years at a time, it is never officially "permanent", although it is in practice indefinite. Note that "preventive detention" means different things in different countries. Looking at the preventive detention article, the Norwegian "preventive detention" is pretty much the same as in Germany, but in many other places it refers to a preemptive arrest before or even without any trial and conviction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's permanent in the sense that it is not short term: 5 years is not a normal length of detention. Length of 'regular' detention is often measured in days or weeks; and shouldn't last longer than for e.g. a year or so in total. Njardarlogar (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begining point of the sentence

Is the begining of the sentence the arrest day july 25th 2011 or day of the end of trial august 24th 2012, meaning in theory will he have possibility to be free july 25th 2032 or august 24th 2033?--RicHard-59 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand what the source [2] says: As of the day of verdict, he was sentenced to 21 years in prison (which can be extended indefinitely - repeatedly by five years at a time), with 445 days counted as time served. The source also explains that while he was arrested 399 days before the verdict, each day spent in isolation counts as two days for the purpose of time served before the sentencing. Please also note that a person sentenced to the maximum penalty in Norway may be granted parole even after 10 years in prison (but unless the sentence is extended because the perpetrator is deemed to be still a danger to society, he MUST be released after 21 years). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

This article was originally created by a user who had been blocked from editing Wikipedia, and who was using a sockpuppet account to evade the block. Standard practice for articles created by means of block evasion is that the articles are to be deleted regardless of their merits (and with no prejudice against their being re-created by other users), unless the article has been substantially expanded by other users. Because this article has been substantially expanded by other users, it will not be deleted. DS (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lacoste and Chanel

"Lacoste, the French fashion label known by its green crocodile logo, is reported to have asked the authorities in Norway to prevent Anders Behring Breivik from wearing the brand.": [3]. His other big "big brand passion" was apparently Chanel's "Platinum Egoiste" cologne: [4]. Should these be mentioned somehow? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One clinic (1983, 1984), one psychologist (several reports 1983, 1984), one child-psychiatrist (cirka 0 observations-with-report) at the clinic

In case the following is of help to this wiki-article:

The psychologist who wrote the report (in 1983 or 1984) was forbidden by Behring, to give evidence at Breivik's trial (in 2012); Behring herself was excused from testifying (in 2012) on health grounds.
Sources:
https://www.tv2.no/a/8142855/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9592433/Anders-Behring-Breiviks-mother-sexualised-him-when-he-was-four.html. 89.8.150.12 (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]