Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

Linking the terrorist manifesto is unsettling

Not being a regular wikipedia contributor, I do not know the applying policies. But the so-called 'manifesto' is a call for terrorism, explicitly meant to encourage possible imitators. I don't think it can or should be linked on any respectable site. Same applies to the video. Corinius (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So are works of Marx and Engels especially those calling for bloodbath and genocide toward Croats and other Slavs and yet we still didn't ban the works of these two men.

Here are just three examples and yet they are more then sufficient to prove genocidal and terroristic intentions of these two:

"Peitschen Gesindel in die Donau Staupen fort das Freche Lumpenpack Die Bettler, hongrig, inres Lebens mude Ein Schwarm Landlaufer, Schelme, Vagabunden, Kroatenabschaum, niedre Bauernaknechte Die ausgespien ihr ubersatigt land Zu tollen Abend tuuern Sicherm untergang." (Karl Marx)

"...unerbittlichen Kampf auf Leben und Tod mit dem revolutionsverräterischen Slaventum, Vernichtungskampf und rücksichtslosen Terrorismus... " (Karl Marx)

"Aber das größte "Verbrechen" der Deutschen und Magyaren ist allerdings, daß sie diese 12 Millionen Slawen daran verhindert haben, türkisch zu werden!" (Friedrich Engels)

And yet they are revered as a philosophers instead as a rampage criminals what they certainly are. I guess that when Karl Marx writes:"...Vernichtungskampf und rücksichtslosen Terrorismus..." he is calling for unconditional love and heartwarming humanism towards Slavs. 93.138.109.180 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All this is obviously completely irrelevant to my inquiry. In fact, it corroborates my impression that linking this material is inappropriate. Corinius (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the Wikipedia guidelines on external links:

1. Manifesto and video do not meet the criteria listed as “what normally can be linked”.

2. The inclusion is not warranted by common sense. The manifesto encourages terrorism. Moreover, it also gives detailed information on the acquisition of firearms, explosives, and the building of bombs, to only list the most obvious problems.

Linking it gives the (hopefully false) impression that Wikipedia condones terrorism. Future terrorists should not get their information on how to kill innocent people via Wikipedia.

3. Due to its encouragement of homicide and its content of extreme hate-speech, it also violates the criterion of “tastefulness” (mildly expressed).

4. The inclusion of the manifesto and the video as external links gives undue weight to Breivik’s views, and thus, violates the NPOV principle.

If no arguments appear here as to why the links should be kept despite the above arguments that they should not, I am going to delete them. Corinius (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Much of the information needed for the article is available through reliable news sources so it is not necessary to use this primary source. However,many of these sources link to it. --Javaweb (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Yes, it's probably inevitable that some of these sources link the manifesto. But that falls under their responsibility. I just think that it can't be defended to link this stuff on Wikipedia. Corinius (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism

Christian apologists are trolling wikipedia, but this guy wanted to kill "cultural marxists" who were, as he saw it, threatening the purity of European Christendom and European culture in general. His religious beliefs cannot be separated from his hatred of Islam nor his zionism. His manifesto mentions 'Christ' 500 times in the first 200 pages of his 1,518 page manifesto. He voted for only the most conservative clergy in church elections. He said he considered himself "100% Christian." He was a member of "The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon", which was allegedly founded in London in April 2002, as a "re-founding" of the millenia-old Christian crusader organisation. His video celebrated crusaders as heroes. Just because you disagree with his beliefs does not mean he's not a Christian. Just because he's crazy, doesn't dismiss the reality that he is a Christian. And his Christianity isn't peripheral. It's essential to understand what his motives were. It doesn't matter what you think Jesus "actually" taught. Also, just because he was fine with agnostics who didn't get in the way, doesn't make this any less of an example of Christian terrorism.

"The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination, according to Norwegian and American officials familiar with the investigation." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24oslo.html?_r=3&pagewanted=3&partner=rss&emc=rss Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Christians are the majority here, therefore I fear they will be successful in suppressing the facts you are pointing to. --89.204.153.249 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a passage where he's the clearest in expressing his religious motivations:

(pg. 1390): "The Bible tells us that we are now all good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Whether we want to face up to it or not, we are all living in a war zone as a result of the curse of Adam and Eve that is still in full operation on this earth. Anyone of us at anytime can come under human or demonic attack. The daily news will prove that to you without any shadow of a doubt. Each Christian must now make their own personal decision on all of this. You can either choose to learn how to rise up in the power of your Lord and Saviour and learn how to become a true warrior in the Lord, or you can continue to keepyour head in the sand and oppressor after oppressor keep beating you down. The choice is yours."

I realize that his religious beliefs will be an object of great contention among those who wish to diminish or distort them, but we must strive to present a comprehensive and objective view that takes into account passages like the one I've quoted above and his emphasis on cultural Christianity. Lklusener (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No you are bias in your reasoning. Read these passages instead which outlines Ander's view on Christianity:

[p. 1309] "A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians? If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."

[p.1346] "If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. [...] I am pursuing religion for this very reason and everyone else should as well, providing it will give you a mental boost. There is no shame in praying minutes before your death."

"Pragmaticists or rationalistic minded individuals who are hardened atheists should consider the following; it may be pragmatic to believe in an afterlife as it will make you a more efficient soldier. The less fearfull a person is the more effective he will be as a warrior."

[p.1363] "The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order."

[p.1405] "Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

EnEvighet7 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

" By propagating and defending Christendom we simply mean that we want to halt the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist attacks and systematic deconstruction on our Christian cultures and the Church itself and to reverse the de-Christianisation of Europe." (Manifesto, p.1352)

" Although the PCCTS, Knights Templar is a pan-European indigenous rights movement we give all Europeans, regardless of skin colour, the opportunity to become a Justiciar Knight as long as the individual is either a Christian, Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist. " (Manifesto, p. 820)66.188.228.180 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On his Facebook page, Breivik described himself as both conservative and Christian. In a 2009 online post, he wrote: "Today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic." http://www.courant.com/mobile/hc-campbell-terrorist-0726-20110726,0,6453552.column 66.188.228.180 (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the shooter also claim not to have a personal relationship with Christ? --Protostan (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So what? He also said he was a Christian. To contend otherwise because of your own personal standard of what it means to be a Christian would be personal bias and OR. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So he's a Christian. What, does one guy make all Christians evil murderers or terrorists? People are fighting so hard to make the case that just because fundamentalist Islam is violent that doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists and this type of argument would undermine that. Breivik may well be Christian and that can go in the article but there is no need to give too much weight to the fact. After all, that's not the reason he did this terrible thing and there haven't been other incidents like it. MultK (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no definitive answer as to whether Breivik was a "Christian" or not, while he was certainly not a practicing Christian, so the logical solution seems to omit this reference from the infobox and only include it in the discussion. Additionally, several other terrorists with other motivations, notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Nidal Malik Hasan , who called himself "Soldier of Allah" and regularly attended Dar al-Hijrah mosque (the mosque frequented by the 9/11 hijackers), do not have "Islam" in their top biography summary or infobox. Why is the highly controversial "Christian" label in the infobox absolutely necessary for Breivik and yet unnecessary for other terrorists of well-known religious communities? Recommend remove religion from infobox and leave in discussion. --Nikeshoccr (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for putting this in the wrong section: The blog of A.J. Deus, a researcher in religious terrorism, contains detailed information about Breivik's religiousity: http://greatleapfraud.wordpress.com/. The author argues the extensive use of biblical justifications in the 2083 compendium and an expressed intent to submit Europe to a reformed Catholic Church with the pope as the supreme Knights Templar. Breivik calls for the annexation of the Palestinian territories by Israel. It is understandable that Christian leaders try to find any argument to undo Breivik's Christianity. However, that does not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni.R.Hume (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Knights Templar 2083 (video) – Anders Behring Breivik

"Now, some webpages reports that Anders Behring Breivik has published a (12minutes) Video with the title: „Knights Templar 2083″."

Source: http://thomaslachetta.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/knights-templar-2083-video-anders-behring-breivik/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.198.216 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, the man was a Protestant, so it is impossible that he is a Templar. The two are mutually exclusive.

"The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order."(page 1363 from his manifesto)

people, the man apparently killed about 90 people for psychotic reasons. it shouldnt be impossible that he regards himself a templar nonetheless. --84.133.33.44 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

From his own "compendium" it seems his position is more complex than just "protestant" -

The Protestant liberal Church defends and encourages the ordination of women, divorce,

abortion, the mass scale distribution of contraceptive pills and contributes to glorify

homosexuality (including the ordination of homosexuals). When the Church resembles a

minimalistic shopping mall, the female priest wears jeans, defends abortion and the mass

scale distribution of contraceptive pills, defends the Jihad against the Israelis and lives a

sexually active life; then what is the point? We must go back to our Catholic roots. We,

the protestant nations of Europe should not forget that we were all Catholics once.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He was a 'cultural christian' as he described, and in his manifesto he describes just how as such, having those differing viewpoints are not exclusive. He mentioned that athiests and agnostics could be Christian as well - and those are farther away from Protestantism than freemasonry. You are correct that actual protestant beliefs are incompatible with being a Freemason - but he held to a non-religious (as he put it) cultural belief system in which he could take from different beliefs as he wanted. "A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians? If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian." (page 1309)

His definition of Christian being contradictory to the standard Biblical definition, it is not a further contradiction of his own views to include other religions and beliefs in as well, as he is approaching belief from a cultural standpoint and not a religious one.

He himself said it was “gruesome but necessary” to save Europe from Jihad and immigration. Similar to those who kill to bring the Twelfth Imam, he wanted to bring on the pushback by killing. He was critical of leaders in Norway who press for a new Palestinian state, specifically: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The blog of A.J. Deus, a researcher in religious terrorism, contains detailed information about Breivik's religiousity: http://greatleapfraud.wordpress.com/. The author argues the extensive use of biblical justifications in the 2083 compendium and an expressed intent to submit Europe to a reformed Catholic Church with the pope as the supreme Knights Templar. Breivik calls for the annexation of the Palestinian territories by Israel. It is understandable that Christian leaders try to find any argument to undo Breivik's Christianity. However, that does not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni.R.Hume (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Member of the Church of Norway?

External sources, and thus this article, frequently describe him as a "Christian", which is a bit vague. What denomination was he? From what I can gather (my Norwegian is far from fluent) he was actually a member of the Church of Norway. Can anyone confirm/dispel this with reliable external sources? --Mais oui! (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He says that he was baptized Church of Norway at 15, but believes that Norway should have a "reverse-reformation" and go back to Catholicism, detesting the perceived informality and progressiveness of Protestant churches in Norway. This is all in his manifesto, which can easily be found online on PDF form on google. 70.109.187.152 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway is a country where its native-born citizens are considered Christians by default, and you have to tell the government if you want to statistically not be considered a Christian. However as it makes no difference at all to daily life then not many people bother doing so. Anyway, the fact that he describes himself as a Christian makes this a moot point.--EchetusXe 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Echetus, most ethnic Norwegians are considered members of the (state) Church of Norway, and you have to do something actively to leave that church. It used to be quite difficult until recent years. JonFlaune (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So, we know that he was confirmed in the Church of Norway at the age of 15, but was he actually a practising member of that Church as an adult? Many people are baptised and confirmed in churches, but are not actually practising members of those churches as adults.--Mais oui! (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

From his 'compendium':

I have reserved 2000 Euro from my operations budget which I

intend to spend on a high quality model escort girl 1 week prior to execution of the mission.

I will probably arrange that just before or after I attend my final martyrs mass in Frogner Church.

Seems to find the ritual important, but not the conventional morality ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted some changes that removed "Church of Norway" from the infobox. Leaving the Church of Norway requires actively registering that you have left, Breivik did not do this, so he was and is still a member of the church, even if he didn't actually go to church every Sunday. Josh Keen (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian, or cultural christian

First things first - the cached version of Breivik's Facebook profile does NOT include the much-ballyhooed description of himself as "Christian". (BTW: Why is the Facebook profile not discussed more prominently in the article? WP policy DOES permit drawing direct and unambiguous conclusions from primary documents, e.g. "the FB page does NOT mention any religion".

The authenticity of a later version of the FB page is subject to considerable doubt. This is reinforced by the politically convenient but bizarre characterization of the crime as "fundamentalist Christian" by Norwegian police. The claim is bizarre because there are essentially no "fundamentalist Christians" in Norway, and Breivik certainly never was a "fundamentalist Christian in any sense. This term appears to have been used to propitiate leftist groups in the U.S.

People who has searched through his "manifest" has found this quote: "I do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. I do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform." This, supposedly, at page 1306. I haven't checked, and I'm not sure I ever want to touch that thing, but if this makes him a Cultural Christian and not a christian, would what he says about himself be of importance? Greswik (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to claim he's not a "true Christian"? Yeah, that's not going to fly on here. He's a Christian. It's truly pathetic how many right wing nutjobs have been trying to change the Christian aspect since they found out he wasn't a Muslim. 124.169.71.201 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

So what? Greswik has a point here, anyway doesn't s/he? --Teiresia (T) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this is of importance. How would you word it? --Teiresia (T) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking about changing the infobox. But let's see what people think. This obviously is touchy. Greswik (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is a christian. Period. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He clearly is a Christian, but why should this clearly stated religious viewpoint be excluded, because he would no longer fit into the neat little box of fundamentalist nut-job? The broader a picture we have of the man's actions and beliefs the more we can learn about him... how his stated beliefs diverge so widely from his actions so clearly born of religious fundamentalism are in my opinion as important in understanding this man's pathology as anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.147.86 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian, but please refrain from the personal attacks, no need to call all Christian fundamentalists "nut-jobs", keep it civil buddy. Thanks DerekMD (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One person could read that manifesto and say he is a Christian and was motivated by a Christian ideology, another could say "he doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus" and therefore not a Christian. That is why wikipedia prefers secondary sources like the New York Times article, to primary sources, which are open to interpretation by different editors. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see how weird it really is, consider: "A great majority of people tend to seek out a divine power when they are facing an extreme threat. It is therefore essential and it is strongly recommended that all Justiciar Knights (even our Christian agnostic and Christian atheist brothers and sisters) attend Church before the operation to seek absolution and to request that God infuses our our soul and our armour of steel with the armour of spiritual protection and confidence." (p. 1345) I don't get the difference between a Christian atheist and a Muslim atheist... (we need an ASCII emoticon for pointedly tapping your head) Wnt (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course some people are going to argue this guy is a "cultural Christian", not a "real Christian". Perhaps there is some merit to this idea, perhaps not. The point is that we are not a discussion forum, we just collect information and arrange it based on its relative notability (WP:DUE). So the thing you want to do is, wait for somebody quotable to say he is a "cultural Christian", then cite this person here, with proper attribution. Problem solved. Don't try to start debates here about whether he "is" or "is not" a "cultural Christian", just report who said what. Did I mention this isn't a discussion forum? Also, we don't do soul-searching on the private religious convictions of Muslim terrorists. They blow up people in the name of Islam, hence they are Muslim terrorist. Exactly the same applies to Christian terrorism. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is obviously a Christian. In Norway the very definition of Christian is "member of the Church of Norway". Most people officially considered Christians in Norway do not have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God", because Norway is not the US. He states that he "believe[s] in Christianity" and that clearly makes him a Christian. JonFlaune (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

yes of course. It still may be reasonable to inquire about further details of his Christianity, like it may make sense to point out that most Muslim terrorists are influenced by Wahhabism. But the point is that such considerations aren't the job of Wikipedians. We only report on them as they get published. It is completely undisputed that "he is a Christian". The question was, "should we embark on editorializing on the question of what kind of Christian he is". The answer to that is no, stick to WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a quote from his manifesto:

"As a non-religious person, but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture, I have warned against naive Christian compassion[1] related to Muslim immigration, as well as a disturbing tendency among too many Christian organisations to ally themselves with Muslims, for "religious values" and against Israel. But frankly, the most useful allies Muslims have in the West more often than not tend to be found among the non-religious crowd."

Clearly, not a Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.61.90 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian as Christian can be. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit written by Fjordman. Was there clarity on whether Fjordman was Breivik or not? h3st (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another quote that may help add context:

"If you want to fight for the cross and die under the “cross of the martyrs” it’s required that you are a practising Christian, a Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist (cultural Christian). The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit. Even Odinists can fight with us or by our side as brothers in this fight as long as they accept the founding principles of PCCTS, Knights Templar and agree to fight under the cross of the martyrs. The essence of our struggle is to defeat the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe before the we are completely demographically overwhelmed by Muslims. I have studied Norse Mythology and have a lot of respect for the Odinist traditions. I consider myself to be a Christian, but Odinism is still and will always be an important part of my culture and identity."

It seems that he considers himself to be Christian, but whether that be "Cultural Christian" or religious Christian, remains unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.61.90 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this should help clear up a lot:

"As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons. After all, Christianity is the ONLY cultural platform that can unite all Europeans, which will be needed in the coming period during the third expulsion of the Muslims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.61.90 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A cultural Christian is nonetheless a Christian. --89.204.153.249 (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was Dawkins or Hitchens who described themselves as Christian in a cultural sense... would you count them as truly Christian? They clearly wouldn't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.103.211 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion I would have is to read Religion in Norway. Only 32% of Norwegians respond that ""they believe there is a God". Yet 84.2% of Norwegians are nominally a member of some church. As of 1995, only 5% of Norwegians regularly attended church. (I would guess/assume that it's lower now, but the exact number is irrelevant to the point.) That's completely different from the US where 60%-75% (depending on whose poll you use) self-identifies as Christian and 42% attend church. In the US, most people who call themselves Christians are "practicing" Christians in that they attend church. In Norway, only 40% of people who are nominally church members even believe in God and only a tiny percentage attend Church. So if the case is that this guy was not a "practicing" Christian, then appropriate terminology might be "non-practicing Christian" or "nominally Christian". --B (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that this is not a forum. Per policy, talk-page edits not directly related to article content may be deleted, and our own speculations as to ABB's beliefs are utterly irrelevant - we base articles on reliable sources, not on our own theological/psychological analysis. If you wish to engage in that, do it eleswhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's completely inappropriate AndyTheGrump; the people in this thread are discussing what to put in the article about his religion.Teapeat (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On page 1398 of the Manifesto he explicitly identifies himself as a Christian. My concern is that people are cherry-picking secondary sources that claim that he's only a cultural Christian, whereas the vast majority of sources don't seem to do that, and tend to refer to him as fundamentalist christian. That's also supported by the manifesto; apparently he also says he left the Church of Norway because it wasn't religiously hard-core enough for him (or words to that effect).Teapeat (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He explicitly identifies himself as a cultural Christian on page 1362. Page 1362-1363:

"As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons. After all, Christianity is the ONLY cultural platform that can unite all Europeans, which will be needed in the coming period during the third expulsion of the Muslims ... The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order."

Blueroom2 (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He considers himself a cultural Christian, because he's influenced by the culture, but that doesn't mean he's not a Christian as well, and he indicates that he was at one point agnostic, but he isn't any more, and he specifically identifies as Christian. If he was just a cultural Christian then he would be agnostic or a follower of another faith.Teapeat (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As people have said, we should be relying on reliable sources. Amongst the many good reasons for this is because people were earlier apparently quoting stuff he evidentally got directly from Fjordman (who I think it's now clear is someone else) as ABB's own words. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The question of a cultural Christian vs. a real Christian can probably be answered with the blog of A.J. Deus, a researcher in religious terrorism: http://greatleapfraud.wordpress.com. While he might be a "cultural" Christian (whatever that is), much of his intellectual framework is based on the Old and New Testament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni.R.Hume (talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

self-admitted perpetrator

why is he mentioned as self-admitted perpetrator? he is plainly a terrorist. does Wikipedia really need to use buzzwords? --Infestor (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He has not been convicted of terrorist crimes and he has not pleaded guilty of such, although his crime has been widely described as terrorism. --hydrox (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, "self-admitted perpetrator" is accurate and descriptive. "Terrorist" is the buzzword here. --99.226.73.18 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The expression "has claimed responsibility for" is altogether too weak when seen in relation to the facts: There is no question what so ever that Breivik himself, at least, is a perpetrator. Whether there could have been others is still a contentious matter, and if this should be stressed, there are surely other ways of doing it than diminishing the assertion that nothing, at this point, suggests anything else than Breivik being a perpetrator. --Benjamil 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamil (talk • contribs)

i totally agree with you benjamil.-- mustihussain (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A man is innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law. If we say anything other then "he has been accused" we are breeching both BLP and his real world legal rights.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

he has confessed after being caught.-- mustihussain (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So no one has ever confessed to a crime they did not commit?Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

take a look on this article [1].-- mustihussain (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And? This does not say the police saw him shoot any one (in fact it says he fired no shots at the police) not does it say anthing about people never making false confesions. In fact this article goes to great pains to not attribute any crimes to him.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

that's nonsense. clearly, you don't read norwegian.-- mustihussain (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

jeez, i detest the wordplay in wikipedia. in some cases, kill hundreds/thousands and your name will be mentioned as guerilla/freedom fighter. way to go! --Infestor (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Where has that been said? I ask you to withdraw that statement.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

Could somebody that knows how it would be pronounced please add an IPA representation of his name. Mortein | Talk 06:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

[ɑndɛʂ bɛːɾɪŋ bɾɛj'ʋiːk] in Standard Eastern Norwegian, I suppose. Might need checking. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As a Norwegian, I would have transcribed it as [ɑndɛrs bɛːrɪŋ brɛj'ʋiːk]. Due to Norwegian phonology, in Eastern Norwegian the sound 'rs' merges and becomes something akin to 'sh'. (Even if the r is the last sound of a word, and the s is the initial sound of the following word.) To most Norwegians, it would sound awkward if a saying the name in English were to pronounce it as 'Andesh', as this merging of sounds is not a feature of English phonology.

In my Western Norwegian accent, I would pronounce it as [ɑndɛʁs bɛːʁɪŋ bʁɛj'ʋiːk]. Because r can be pronounced in many ways in Norwegian, I would suggest using a "generic" letter "r" rather than one denoting a particular pronounciation. V85 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the transcription after reading the article Norwegian phonology. I'm familiar with Norwegian, particularly Bokmål and "standard østnorsk" (Standard Eastern Norwegian), but I'm Swedish myself. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the IPA to ['ɑnəʂ 'beːɾiŋ 'bɾæɪʋiːk]. I'm a linguist and a native speaker of Standard East Norwegian. The 'd' is never pronounced in 'Anders'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.66.244 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The photo is not neutral - change it

The main photograph in the article is in elegant suit - it glorifies Breivik. He made what he made to became famous, to became a "Hero". The photo in the article should not portrait him "aristocrat" and Übermensch - this is what he wanted us to do! Please change it to more neutral one. (es_uomikim (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Is there a free image running around out there besides that one that would serve better? WP:FAIR may be a limiting factor as to what photo may be used in the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have always been struck with this photo looking like a movie star. Other photos are not so glorious. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so if there is no other photo maybe the second one - where he poses as a shooter - is the better one? Actually he WAS a shooter rather than a movie star or a hero. The "intelligent, handsome, nice young man" self-portrait is inappropriate in what he's done. And it portraits him in a way he wanted to show himself - as a hero; let us not help him in it! (es_uomikim (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

In his manifesto, Breivik specifically mentioned the need to look good on Wikipedia. Let's not allow him to do this. 85.220.49.148 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly agree. The picture also appears to be somewhat dated, as more recent pictures show an older and fatter Breivik. As long as permission isn't an issue, or can be obtained if it is, I believe we should be using the photograph of Breivik looking out the window of the police cruiser. It's the most recent and as for social contexts the most accurate. If there's any other reason to choose a picture, let me know. Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! The captured Breivik in the car window hints at the event, not just him "looking good in Wikipedia" .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

File:Pears-Soap-barbox.jpg

Among the things that Wikipedia isn't, there is the soapbox. So do like the soap in the picture, and get out of the soap box. Besides, is better when you are neekid™.

Now, brothers (and sisters) in the Christian faith: by contract with our God, we are obligued to speak truth. This guy is a Christian fundamentalist and a Christian terrorist. That is the truth, whether we like it or not. Could you please stop denying and downplaying that he is using the bible in his own way to explain why a sadistic mass murder is a good thing? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This entry should probably be deleted. It is proselytizing, interpetative, speculative, incompliant with the style guide (as I understand) and dubious to the max. Incidentally, a person can be a Christian and a terrorist without being a "Christian terrorist", just as one can be a Darwinist and a terrorist without being a "Darwinist terrorist". Breivik's writings give grounds for doubting all the points you presumptively raise. You also appeal to a personal interpretation of a contract between yourself and your god as binding upon other users, which won't fly. Moreoever, we are all trying to speak the truth; apparently we don't all agree with your interpretations of what the truth is!--Ben Ammi (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not the same stance when it comes to muslim terrorists? --89.204.137.166 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

huh? (As far as I know, the "same stance" is taken in regards to all peoples, by Wikipedia. If you have problems with Wiki articles on Muslims, then go fix those instead.) The initial post by Rursus is anecdotal, containing unproven, disputed claims. Moreover, Rursus' contract(s) with his god is irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Ben Ammi (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also WP:BLP to consider. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As of now, the sources say he was motivated by what he saw as Christian motives. His manifesto is chock full of Christian themes and symbology, and I haven't seen any sources that indicate those sources to be in error. It is not up to us to decide what we believe about him or not. Ours is the realm of verifiability, not truth. Let's all assume Good Faith, and go with the sources. This is a new event, and I'm sure more information will arise. Now is not the time for original research, sanitizing, or political POVs to carry the day.204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on Anders Behring Breivik should mention that he is fucking right-wing whack job who, like all racist nutters, should be hung. Cheers. 86.141.0.233 (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources say that experts describe the acts as right-wing terrorism.[2] BTW we treat terrorist attacks by Muslims in the same way. Arab terrorist attacks in the 1980s by the Abu Nidal organization, the PLO, etc. are never described as Islamic terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course we don't treat terrorist attacks by Muslims the same way. Check Category:Islamic_terrorism - many of those attackers could be described as "nationalists" or "cultural Muslims" or "left-wing extremists". But Wikipedia does not say that.. it says "Islamic terrorist". How many "Islamic terror" groups cite the liberation of the Palestinian Occupied Territories as one of their main aims? Well, that is a geopolitical goal, not Islamic. By the arguments here, should they all be classified as "geopolitical terrorists" or "cultural Muslims", rather than Islamic?

The question of whether the attackers are cultural Muslims (or right-wing/left-wing, or liberal/conservative, or have geopolitical goals) is very rarely discussed on Wikipedia, and never used as a reason to exclude groups or individuals from being classed as "Islamic terrorists" in the way that editors are arguing Breivik should excluded from being classed as a "Christian terrorist". Josh Keen (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is where falcon asked me to post my observation that Breivik likely hasn't called himself a terrorist and untill he's been convicted we must walk lightly. --Protostan (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not he calls himself a terrorist is irrelevant. I doubt that many terrorists do. However, that doesn't change the fact that he fits the definition for the category Christian terrorist. He's a self described Christian who committed an act of terrorism to advance his anti-Islamic immigration views. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since wikipedia got sued the rules are far more harsh though in all fairness the accused hasn't yet been convicted and juding by the amount he's alledged to have written he seems like the type that would sue. Please read: WP:BLP and if you still don't like the rules of wikipedia work to have them changed (let me know and I'll likey suport you). --Protostan (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bringing past lawsuits (that you fail to name or link to) doesn't win your argument or change policies. On categorization, BLP only states that self-identification is needed for religious beliefs and sexual orientation. Behring has identified as Christian, and being a terrorist is neither a religious belief (even if religiously motivated), nor is it a sexual orientation. Thus, self-identification does not apply and is not needed as per BLP. That said, the point regarding "criminals" states that someone should be convicted, and not have had that conviction overturned. Behring has been accused, has basically admitted responsibility for the attacks, but has not been convicted. It's possible that on those grounds the "terrorist" portion of the category label should be removed until the trial, but his lack of self-identification is irrelevant to the BLP policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Making the matter only more complex is his steroid abuse. Can a clinically insane person be classified as a terrorist? --Protostan (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism is a motive and intention of results, so yes. Also, that's a serious jump to say that steroids have rendered him "clinically insane." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since that's how Breivik's lawyer has described him it's not much of a jump at all. --Protostan (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big jump. It is a defense claim being made by the lawyer, but not a medical or clinical determination made by anyone. As has been discussed elsewhere on this talk page, there is no basis to state in this article that he is clinically insane, only that his lawyer has made the claim. Regardless, it wouldn't change whether what he did was determined to be an act of terrorism anymore than if Mohammed Atta had been shown to suffer from schizophrenia. You also have no basis that I've been able to find linking his steroid use to any claims of insanity, so that may constitute OR on your part. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal developments [Arraignment hearing on July 25]

Some material on today's closed doors court proceedings should be added:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080768

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080747

According to the court decision today, Breivik received 8 weeks of jail in solitary confinement:

Breivik er varetektsfengslet i åtte uker - fire uker i full isolasjon.

Also note:

På spørsmål om straffskyld fra dommeren, svarte 32-åringen at han erkjente de faktiske forhold, både for eksplosjonen og for massakeren på Utøya, men har erkjenner ikke straffskyld.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please translate the above for us non-Swedish speakers? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence above is norwegian, not swedish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.88.58 (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik er varetektsfengslet i åtte uker - fire uker i full isolasjon.

Breivik is sentenced to confinement/custody/jail for eight weeks — four in total isolation.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the initiative of running the second statement through Google Translate, and the proper translation of the second statement would appear to be along these lines (correct what's in error, please!):

When asked by the judge, the 32-year-old said that he acknowledged the facts regarding the explosion and the massacre of Utøya, but did not acknowledge guilt.

--Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik has not been "sentenced" - what happened today is that the court approved a request from the police to keep him in protective custody for eight weeks. 90.149.37.62 (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

På spørsmål om straffskyld fra dommeren, svarte 32-åringen at han erkjente de faktiske forhold, både for eksplosjonen og for massakeren på Utøya, men har erkjenner ikke straffskyld.

Asked by the judge regarding legal responsibility, the 32 year old answered that he confessed to the factual curcumstances, both regarding the explosion and the Utøya massacre, but that he does not confess to being legally responsible.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the material in the lead dealing with today's detention hearing. This is at least an improvement, but I'm still not happy with it — one can still get the impression that the court decided to detain Breivik because he claims to be in contact with other extremists.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a clarification to the heading.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User 90.149.37.62 wrote:

Breivik has not been "sentenced" - what happened today is that the court approved a request from the police to keep him in protective custody for eight weeks.

Please put new text under old one. Insertions like this are confusing, and could easily be overlooked. Yes, your'e right—but obviously, the request was from the prosecutor, not the police.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The court's ruling.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New death total [July 25]

Police press conference, reported now:

Utøya — at least 68.

Oslo — at least 8.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=461572

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the link doesn't work.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/dodstalen-justeras-ned

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/25/norway.terror.attacks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a clarification to the heading.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone has edited the heading. I am happier with the new wording, and I was considering to change the heading myself. However, please don't change material written by another editor without clearly saying so in a post.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From http://www.theblaze.com/stories/oslo-shooters-lawyer-i-think-my-client-is-insane/
"Earlier, Norway’s justice minister told reporters Tuesday that employees from his department are still missing. Police plan to start publicly naming the dead for the first time Tuesday."

"There is a particular focus on identifying the dead since authorities dramatically lowered the death toll Monday, apparently because they counted 18 bodies twice in the confusion following the massacre. They initially said 86 people died on the island, but now say the figure is 68."
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) . . . And 93 - 18 = 75, right?

Numerous news articles today say 76 were killed, and WP article, 2011_Norway_attacks, notes 8 in Oslo and 68 on the island—which adds correctly to 76.. . . . Names were promised for yesterday, but only four names were given. Today, Wednesday, 13 more. It is good to release the names slowly, for reverence and respect. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8666575/Norway-attacks-police-release-names-of-13-more-victims.html . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of 21 youth, names released July 28, 2011: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/188700/20110728/anders-behring-breivik-massacre-victims.htm and in addition list 42 names released. There is other good information at this online news outlet, somewhat liberally biased. They reference the BBC info from Oslo police, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14276074 which shows the portrait-photos of the eight victims in Oslo; and names with some portrait-photos for 69 island victims. 8 + 69 = 77 innocents. A favorite picture for remembrance is Margrethe Boeyum Kloeven, age 16. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias in writing about ABB's religious beliefs

Thus far, the discussion of ABB's religious beliefs has focused solely on his writings about cultural Christianity, and his claims about being a "moderately religious" person. This is correct and should be included in the article. But, it is false to portray him as only a cultural Christian as the article currently does.

Further on in the manifesto (starting on pg. 1327), he speaks much more fervently about his religious beliefs, even describing himself as a "soldier of Jesus Christ." He talks about how God has anointed him (and others like him) "to go into battle" (pg. 1330) and how God will provide him with a "protective shield." (pg. 1331)

He quotes extensively from the Bible in this section, citing "battle verses" for support (pg. 1329).

If we are to include the passages about his view of cultural Christianity, it seems rather biased and unbalanced to then just ignore the passages in which he talks much more personally and fervently about his religious beliefs.

Also, in the religion section, there have been included two opinion pieces from Christian religious affairs writers, again, portraying him exclusively as a "cultural Christian." There have been other such opinion pieces in which he is described as having a much stronger religious identity than that. But, these have not been included. Lklusener (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So why don't you include them, making sure to back them up with references to reliable sources? Greenshed (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A source that explains the religiosity of Breivik is the blog of A.J. Deus, a researcher in religious terrorism http://greatleapfraud.wordpress.com/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni.R.Hume (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue LOW weight given to his opinions about Israel in the article

User:JonFlaune has meticulously assembled a host of sources each of which stress the relevance of Breivik's pro-Israel stance as part of his ideology.

Obviously, there are strong and relentless efforts to downplay this aspect, seeing as mention of it is currently entirely absent from the lead and buried far down in the article.

Instead, the lead contains mention --based on a single source, no less-- that Commentators in Norway have also emphasized that it would be "incorrect" to label him as a "fundamentalist Christian", also relativizing his fundamental Christian views, using Breivik's self-description as "moderately religious" which flies in the face of his characterization in virtually all available reliable sources.

Here is a permlink to JonFlaune's sources.

To accurately reflect the sum total of available reliable sources, we need to mention Breivik's pro-Israel stance in the article lead.

We also need to remove POV attempts at downplaying the perpetrator's Christian fundamentalism.

And finally, we may need to start article-banning users who are, with whatever motivation, trying to remove this article from being a faithful summary of the sum total of available sources. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The events in and around Oslo are far too WP:RECENT to begin assigning motivations such as political or religious ideology. Further, there are far too many conflicting sources that can be used to argue either for or against including such motivations in the article. I would recommend waiting a week or so, as a minimum, to allow a predominant profile to emerge, instead of yelling "everyone pick a bandwagon and jump on!". Let's take the time to do it right instead of having to take the time to do it over. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of your objections are applicable.

For one, nobody suggests that we assign anything. Also, on the point of his pro-Israel stance, virtually all of the available sources are in agreement -- and it's never too soon to accurately summarize what the available sources contain.

Let's take the time to do it right -- You don't appear to voice any objection regarding the fact that we, apparently, didn't take time to get it wrong.

Again, none of your objections apply, at all and obviously so. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been edits to the religion section declaring him to not be a Christian on the basis of a blog piece in the CommentIsFree section of the Guardian website. There are many threads that need to unraveled, objectively and fairly, in describing his religious beliefs. One the one hand, he considers himself to be "moderately religious" and writes at length about cultural Christianity. He also writes that he is not in favor of a Christian theocracy. But, further in the manifesto (starting on pg. 1327), he writes about his religious beliefs in much more personal and fervent terms. He states that he has been "called" and "anointed" with the power of God to be a "soldier of Jesus Christ." He also quotes "battle verses" from the Bible, claiming them as support. The article makes no mention of these passages, but rather only focuses on his writings about cultural Christianity.

We need to take a more nuanced approach in detailing his religious beliefs, rather than alternate between the extremes - that he is not a Christian at all, on the one hand, and that he is only driven by religion, on the other. Lklusener (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so, and thank you for pointing that out. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote The Truth, no matter whose version of The Truth is in question. Wikipedia functions on verifiability. And there just isn't enough verifiable information to either include a pro-Israel stance...or exclude it. Not yet, anyway. Watch, and learn. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote The Truth -- Incidentally, you are the one who appears to ignore WP:V.

And there just isn't enough verifiable information to either include a pro-Israel stance -- This merely reveals that you didn't look at the sources JonFlaune assembled.

Watch, and learn. -- There is not need to be snide or condescending. I have made a lot more edits to Wikipedia than you. Moreover, I'm starting to understand why your recent RfA failed due to a lack of in-depth policy knowledge.

In all, you're quoting policy that agrees with "my" side of the argument, not with yours. And I would appreciate it very much if you didn't ignore the arguments I'm providing. Thank you. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that it has any bearing on the discussion at hand, but I don't suppose you'd be willing to log in and reveal your actual username, would you? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an account. But thanks for assuming good faith and responding to my arguments. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lklusener, I don't see where I may have advocated that we take an "extreme" approach. What I do suggest is that we respect WP:V and make a neutral and intellectualy honest effort to accurately summarize the available reliable sources, with particular regard to his ideology, which appears to be the subject of POV editing. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: Is Breivik's belief really pro-Israel? I get the impression that he's thinking of himself as a Crusader and Israel as a Crusader state - that he might support the idea of the Israeli government and power as an outpost against Islam but not necessarily be pro-Jewish... somehow I have a hard time picturing him being happy to find some neighborhood in Oslo with storefronts labelled up in Hebrew... am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Breivik's belief really pro-Israel? -- Verifiability, not truth. Therefore, the question that must be asked is: Has he been characterized as pro-Israel in the overwhelming majority of available sources? --78.35.236.221 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but it doesn't hurt to try to figure out the truth to help figure out what verifiable facts might be found. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/07/24/3088679/norway-killer-espoused-new-right-wing-pro-israel-philosophy "The confessed perpetrator in the attack in Norway that killed at least 76 people espoused a right-wing philosophy against Islam that also purports to be pro-Zionist." its the global jewish news agency. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=230762 "

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who killed nearly 100 people in a combined terror attack Friday that included car bombings in Oslo and a shooting rampage at an island summer camp, held fiercely anti-Islamic and pro-Israel views, according to a 1,500 page manifesto he uploaded before his killing spree Friday." its the jerusalem post. Satisfied?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are so many thousands of sources, how do we know what's the correct weight. Do most articles devote no sentences, 1 sentence, a paragraph, etc. to this info? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great stance. So you're saying that we shouldn't even bother trying to evaluate the sources? Pray tell, what are you doing on an encyclopedic project? --78.35.236.221 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

10% (500,000) of google search results for "Anders Behring Breivik " include israel. Here's annother rs http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/07/norway-massacre-and-nexus-of.html - "The Norway Massacre and the nexus of Islamophobia and Right-wing Zionism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If 10% mention Israel, the something less than 10% of this article should discuss it, since I doubt each of those articles are entirely about it. If 5% or each of those articles is about Israel (just guessing), then we should devote 0.5% of our article to it. Probably not enough to go in the lead, but 1 sentence for every 200 other sentences we write. Again, this is just a general rule, and I don't know what the real numbers are. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, out of this article's 2,700 words, maybe 2 are about his views on Israel/zionism. That's 0.07%, so it's not like this is given much weight at this time - even 5% of the article would be an enormous increase. I think using percentages like that is meaningless anyway and 5% would probably be too excessive -- even if 5% of the sources mentioned this. In any event, the majority of the sources out there do not deal specifically with his political views. What's important is whether reliable sources demonstrate that this is significant as far as his political position is concerned. As I demonstrated above, multiple high quality sources (and I've seen countless others and could easily expand the list, but I believe that would be unnecessary) demonstrate that his political beliefs consist of a handful of core ideas: Opposition to multiculturalism, Christian fundamentalism/extremism, Islamophobia and what the Jerusalem Post has called "far-right Zionism" and other sources call "undying support for Israel". Multiple sources sum all this up, for example an article in The Australian[3], stating: "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement". Other very highly regarded sources, such as the Financial Times and Der Spiegel, assert that he personifies a (new) type of extremism which is is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam, or, in the words of Der Spiegel, is "pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel -- but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist". Many sources discuss this special blend of extremism. The introduction already includes an unnecessary detailed selection of quotes from his manifesto on him being "moderately religious" and so forth. We could make the introduction more succinct by simply, instead, including one of the quotes that sum up his political position, e.g. the quote from The Australian. JonFlaune (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine and the IP address, your methodology is flawed. The number of google hits is meaningless. Most of those are probably just propagandists seeking to demonize Israel. What matters is how much weight reliable secondary sources are giving to this topic. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Our methodology is flawed? JonFlaune assembled reliable secondary sources. You by contrast simply and erroneously assert that (a) the reliable sources are "Google hits" (which means you didn't bother looking at the sources at all) and that (b) the sources probably just propagandists seeking to demonize Israel. Whose methodology appears ever so slightly flawed here? --87.79.210.245 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Any support Breivik may have had for Israel seems rather irrelevant in this case. The cited motivation for the attack (according to the court's remand order) was hatred of muslims, multiculturalism, and the Labour Party which had betrayed the county by letting in muslims and other cultures. Nothing, and I mean nothing indicates that the attacks were motivated by pro-Israel sympathies, and this aspect of Breivik's political views has received virtually zero coverage in Norwegian media. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's received plenty of coverage in the media including the Israeli media so it is clearly relevant according to reliable sources and understandably so. Just look elsewhere on this talk page for examples. Also, this article is about the person rather than just the attacks. Admittedly, the term 'pro-Israel' ranges from the likes of J-Street 2 state solution advocacy to settler colonization of the Palestinian territories/Land of Israel, so it's a bit vague but that's not our fault, it's the term RS use. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think his pro-Israeli view should be mentioned, but in context. As Sjakkalle said: his prime "motivation" was his his hatred of Muslims and multi-culturalism. However, it is an interesting point that this group have split into two very distinct camps in Scandinavia (Europe?) in these last few years:

• one "traditional" more pro-nazi camp,
• and another extreme pro-Israeli camp.

Now, both camps are tiny, (but possibly bigger in Sweden than in Norway(?)). However, the two camps apparently absolutely detest each other, while fighting over organizations like the Norwegian Defence League. However, it has been noted that the second group (to which Breivik certainly belong) has been growing, especially after 9/11. In order to "place him" in this political landscape, we must also mention his pro-Israeli, pro-Zionis views (..but the primary focus should be, IMO, on his anti-Islamic, anti-muti-culturlalism.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, last time there was a major political killing in Norway, in 1981, the socalled Hadeland-murders, were 2 young guys were basically executed, -this was also done by the extreme right. But those people were in the other "old" extreme right, ie. closer to nazi-views. Huldra (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Who Added "Christian" and "Conservative" to Norway Shooter's Facebook Page Yesterday?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/who-added-christian-and-conservative-to-norway-shooters-facebook-page-yesterday.html -- 91.39.251.54 (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That blog source can't be used in a WP:BLP. Please find quality secondary reliable sources that discusses the issue if you want it included. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That blog is known for bullshitting. It praises the same creed Breivik does. --89.204.137.230 (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the blog is actually trying to fool us. If you look at the two images presented you can clearly see that the one presented as the "earlier" one is taken from a non logged in state, while the "later" image is taken from a logged in state. As any facebook user would know, profile information can be set to differ depending on if the viewer is logged in or not. Thus, it is reasonable to assume this discrepancy was the result of such a setting rather than a grand conspiracy. Cute trick though. 79.136.23.59 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of taking the word of a corrupt and incompetent Norwegian policeman, one can go directly to Breivik's actual Facebook profile (still cached by Google) - it does NOT include the much-repeated description of Breivik as "Christian": The description of Breivik as "Christian" was apparently added to the profile after Breivik's arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFlier (talk • contribs)

Conspiracy theories can be noted if and only if they are discussed in reliable sources (verifiability, not truth). And even then undue weight must be avoided. It is not acceptable to counter a multitude of reliable souces with blogs or original research. Prolog (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Either provide reliable sources or don't bother posting anything here because it's a waste of time. The talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article based on Wikipedia's policies/guidelines and reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dfukNGwFw5YJ:https://www.facebook.com/people/Anders-Behring-Breivik/100002651290254+breivik+site:facebook.com&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com does not mention Christian as a religion, not logged in nor out. --84.137.14.187 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How does this cache show what information one would get while logged in to facebook? I can only see the looged off version. 79.136.23.59 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Document Checksums

Anonymous is waging a campaign to destroy the original document through obfuscation. They are asking people to modify and disseminate the document. For purposes of historical preservation, here are the checksums from the original .docx:

MD5: 7a74e156aefb45416ea057ce19dfe4e9

SHA-1: 66074530de42bf3b3b38d3d0b1aed1c5868e328b

SHA-2 256: b45166c6c5c9a533d32ccd4bce06d1c070cc780238830837cd0db221a54874b8

SHA-2 384: 1c3d9b32afe0f2cd35edfe74df34b19a86b29475c1ff30491fb008d6f68f618914ce1411120c51ef5cc42089a6eb7c41

SHA-2 512: 93b924efdb5cb806ce853ef1c21ea2b693cc5a3403d4d170dffa647b8621aea4f9416aa4b3f2370edc74130dba279121d88b76fe198ee927558cc3fd8fbb22c4

I have downloaded the PDF, how do I a checksum of this document? --89.204.137.230 (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)BTW: I am using Win7

• Well, I believe that it is quite useless and irrelevant, but if someone really wishes to have the checksums, here they are:

MD5: 9e72e26916c20481a1f6e4781fd4d505

SHA-1: 12deae65095b3959e42a27247652073bfe85cc83

SHA-256: 5bc6b6e3645e5dcedbc30a30956dcb69d353f07c9d58b09fa59d92a53fc1192c

SHA-384: 874dab78596a23a6ddfc706890ad616a2ec8daaf266af0ca15b61a63418711f830d206689d044cddb11d53e363237720

SHA-512: 5f1cc991a343a38c6c2234ce3bd2b2b16c40bc933f1fcd1710843eef50b91ba5c37470b0d035019616fdb34bb9e3d11ceed7a437eade9eb079aa95b62da80564

--178.40.14.188 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is useless and irrelevant? --89.204.137.205 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he is referring to the PDF checksums. They are useless and irrelevant because the PDF was not the original document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.65.244 (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fouinei, 26 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} The french version of this page seems to describe more pricesely the religious point of view of Anders Behring Breivik. I suggest to add to the existing sentence "On his Facebook profile, Breivik describes himself as a Christian.[16]", the following one: " (...) as a Christian, even if it appears from his writing that he's closer to atheism or agnosticism, with only a historical cultural christianism part.

As a reference, these are few sentences of his "European Declaration of Independence":

"As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order."[3]

Fouinei (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

_{At the moment not protected. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)}

Born in London [or in Oslo?]

According to this source, Breivik was born in London not Oslo. 93.174.8.253 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of source for hs being born in Lomdon, I would ask that some soeuces are provided saying he was born in Oslo.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See the article in noWP, note 2 (Aftenposten).

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have started a topic on the noWP talk page.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another source saying he was born in Oslo: Helsingin Sanomat describes him as syntyperäinen oslolainen.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is that in English? As being a native of Oslo just means he lives there, it dose not mean he was born there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not quite sure what syntyperäinen means.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

However, the Aftenposten reference clearly says "born on Februari 13, 1979 in Oslo"

Aftenposten søndag 24. juli 2011, side 16 i nyhetsseksjonen i faktaboksen «Anders Behring Breivik» oppgis «Født 13. februar 1979 i Oslo»

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes things awkward another difference of sources. Maybe leave it out untill we know.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, let it say London, for the time being. Anyway, I asked on the Finnish talk page, where I was informed it means he was born in Oslo.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It does say that, I am willing to accept that. Thats the problom, so I think its best to leave out his place of borth untill thre is some kind of consensus from sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. A more definite source would be a desideratum. The French article also uses the Finnish reference.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edited the heading for the sake of clarity.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Failing definite information, I think it's more likely he was born in London. The articles that say so are more recent, and some contain an interview with his father.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting his birthplace as London: "Mr Breivik was born on 13 February 1979 in London, where his father, a diplomat, had been stationed at the time."--68.37.161.91 (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

However, the Norwegian article has a reference to a Norwegian newspaper advertisment from 1979 which states that he was born in Aker hospital in Oslo. ("Annonse (15. Februar 1979): «Dagens navn» (norsk) – Aftenposten, morgen, s. 10. [Aker sykehus, 13. ds.: En gutt. Wenche og Jens Breivik.]" This means: A boy was born to Wenche and Jens Breivik on the 13th day.) --Mlang.Finn (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Matter solved—born in Oslo?

Diff. Thank you, Gryphonis!

"Dagens navn". Aftenposten, morgen. 15 February 1979. p. 10. Aker hospital, Oslo, 13. February 1979. A boy. Name of parents. In Norwegian: (Aker sykehus, 13. ds.: En gutt. Wenche og Jens Breivik)

A scan would of course be good.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Gryphonis if he can provide a scan.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation:

Aftenposten, 15 February 1979, morning edition, p.10: "Today's names."

"Dagens navn". Aftenposten, morgen: p. 10. 15 February 1979.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for needless repetition. I didn't see the post above the heading.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Zionist in the lead or not?

Do you support or oppose adding that Breivik is a zionist in the lead or intro? Please do not vote below the disccusion section. Pass a Method talk 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I am opposed because his video upload did not mention zionism or anything related to zionism. His police report did not mention anything remotely related to zionism. His activity prior to the attack did not have anything related to zionism. The article already states he is pro-israel so this would conflict with WP:UNDUE. It would clog the article to add "zionism" in the lead because he supports dozens of other political organizations too: such as the NDL, EDL, the International Freedom Alliance, he supports the Army of Republika Srpska, Knights Templar, Crusade terror organizations, Democratic Party of Japan etc. so this would clog the intro. If the consensus becomes inclusion, then I will add all his dozen other political affiliations mentioned. Plus, none of the other wikipedia languages mention anything related to zionism. Pass a Method talk 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

its not a political organisation, its a political ideology.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I support its inclusion, an RS makes the claim (the JP) and most of the objections above are synthasis (I.E. its no9t mentione here and there so its not important).Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's probably undue weight. There are so many articles out there, we can source pretty much anything, so that's not a reason to include it. Some judgement is needed, and I don't think it's a major enough point to include it in the lead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now included the claim in the text of the artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It says Zionism in the by-line of the article in the JP. Not quite sure how this could qualify as undue weight. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but don't complan later on when the lead is clogged and congested with 20-or-so political movements, because all his other affiliations are added to the lead. Pass a Method talk 15:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not a political movement its a political ideology.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is Nazi crap from Metapedia. Breivik's message is targeted at neo-Nazis. What he says is this: Abandon your hatred of Jews and start hating Arabs instead and you will be socially acceptable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. – He supports Zionism, but that does not make him a Zionist. He also supports Christianity, but that does not make him a Christian. In fact he is not a Christian, more likely an Atheist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• INCLUDE No doubt about his zionism, just read his manifesto and the blogs he refers to. --89.204.153.168 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Include - the Jerusalem Post (hardly a biased source against Zionism) titled an entire article around the fact that he supports "far-right Zionism", not the regular kind. That is why it should be in the lead - so readers will understand that he does not support mainstream Zionism.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good point, but may be a tad synthy. We don't now he does not support mainstream Zionism.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's quite evident that he doesn't support "mainstream" Zionism, he supports the Israeli far-right, likely only a very small minority of Israelis. Tony Karon of TIME has written an article on this[4]. I think it's a good idea to make it very clear that he supports far-right Zionism, not the moderate kind (just like he believes in some extreme ideas he claims to be Christian, not in mainstream Christianity). JonFlaune (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that this ssource does make that clear. It makes it clear that he bleives in Zionism as represented by the right wing of zionism, not that he does not agree with mainistram Zionism (after all what is Zionism's aim, a Jewish homeland something he supports). What he seems to object to is multiculturalism withing such a homeland. Now what percentage of zionists (as opposed to Jews) oppose that?Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The more we learn about him the more serious his mental illness seems. I'm not sure if we can designate someone with serious mental illness as having an ideology. --Protostan (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment From all I have read (also in Norwegian sources) is basic "creed", if you like, was a deep, intense hatred of Islam. Several things followed from this: his support for the Serbian side in the Balkan wars, and his strong support for Israel/Zionism. If we are to use this in the lead, it should to be in this context. On a local note: lots of people in Norway could be described as "far-right Zionist" (I am not kidding), however, support for the Serbian side in Balkan war, I would say is extremely rare in Norway. Since most things stems from his hatred of Islam, I think that should be first. Say: "He was a right-wing Islamophobic who developed a deep sympathy and support for Serbia and far-right Zionism". Something like that. Also note: he wasn´t really anti-Imigration ---as long as the immigrants were not Muslims! And as for "being mental"; the common belief among the local commentators with knowledge of Norwegian law, is that it will be extremely difficult to have him judged "criminally insane" (Ie not responsible for his action). Especially the long planning period will count against this. And if the courts treats him as "sane", ie accountable for his actions/beliefs, then so must we. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose he was not a practicing Zionist (a member of any Zionist organization, a participant in any pro-Israeli events, etc.) I his pretty long manifesto he puts a few words supporting Israel that Israeli-based media found notable. He also e.g. put quite a few positive words about Vladimir Putin and pro-Putin Nashi youth organizations. Quite a few of Russian bloggers and media-persons found it very notable but I do not think it is a lead material (at least not in English wiki). We do not want to move all of his 1500 pages of the manifesto in the lead, do we? In the lead there should be things that defines him: terrorism, islamophobia, racism, xenophobia. In the body we could inform about other peculiarities of his "political philosophy". Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Er, what exactly is a "practicing Zionist"? Which organisations have the monopoly on being "Zionist"? He was an active member of the leading pro-Zionist forum in Norway, attended their RL meetings, discussing plans for starting a magazine with its owners and so on. No, we don't have the 1500 pages of the manifesto in the lead, merely the ideas that reliable sources have reported as his core political beliefs. Zionism is one of them. JonFlaune (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Do what Huldra recommends. Just "he's a Zionist" isn't correct, we need background included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not stated anywhere that "He's a Zionist", it's all stated in context and citing the Jerusalem Post ("His ultranationalist manifesto lays out his worldview, which includes support for varying degrees of cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, anti-Islamization, "far-right Zionism", and Serbian paramilitarism.[10][14] It argues for the violent annihilation of Islam, "cultural Marxism", and multiculturalism, to preserve a Christianized Europe.") JonFlaune (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The first paragraph of the JP article

“1,500 page manifesto credited to Breivik, accused of killing spree, lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism. “

Third paragraph

“in the 1,500-page tome, which mentions Israel 359 times and “Jews” 324 times, Breivik lays out his worldview, which includes an extreme, bizarre and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism and venomous attacks on Marxism and multi-culturalis”

In fact it’s mentioned twice. So how is my quote not in the source, when its a straight cut and paste?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is a Jewish-Israeli newspaper. So it is not directed to all readers, but Jewish ones. There is not a single non-Israeli newspaper that described Breivik as a zionist. Please find a non-jewish newspaper Pass a Method talk 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, the JP is an RS and we can report what it says. I sugest of you disagree to take this to RSN. However a second source has been found. I would also warn you that you are in danger of edoit warring ove thisSlatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but JP caters to jewish readers. Why doesn't the BBC, Washington Post, The Gurdian, Associated Press or any other newspaper describe him as a zionist? Its because he is not a zionist. His video and report indicates he only bothers about Europe. Nothing to do with Zionism. Pass a Method talk 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We report what RS say, irregardelss of their readership or target audiance. Thgere is also a nono jewsish source (not that it should matter).Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowly these discussions are becoming tiresome. We have addressed this issue several times now, and each time a multitude of sources have favored the inclusion, while the opponents have not cited any sources at all, just offered their unsourced, personal opinion. For convenience, I'll just paste the sources from one of the recent discussions:

His support for Israel is an extremely important part of his Islamophobic worldview, that needs to be discussed. As he states in his manifesto, this is a core idea of his,

"I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now). Islam must be re-classified as a political ideology and the Quran and the Hadith banned as the genocidal political tools they are" (p. 650)

"A modern cultural conservative (nationalist), anti-Jihad right wing alternative is emerging in Western Europe. A majority of Western European right wing groups are all anti-Islamisation and pro-Israel" (p. 1400)

An article in the Financial Times[5] from yesterday discusses the rise of "a new type of right-wing extremism" which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam, and asserts that the killer personifies this type of extremism. As the Huffington Post points out:

"Today, Europe faces a new threat. The pan-European anti-Muslim movement includes leading individuals who embrace "Judeo-Christian values" and express their undying support for Israel instead of the anti-Semitism that is so central to the neo-Nazi movement."[6]

And as Israel National News notes,

"Breivik called himself a strong supporter of Zionism, praised Theodor Herzl the founder of Zionism, and attacked the European political establishment because he saw it as being anti-Israel"[7]

Der Spiegel describes the movement he is part of as:

"pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel -- but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist"[8]

Like the European anti-muslim pro-Israeli far-right, and the far right in Israel itself, Breivik of course is critical of "leftwing Jews", stating:

"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" (Jerusalem Post)

The Jerusalem Post concludes that he

"lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"[9]

The Australian sums it all up:

"Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[10]

I understand that "Whatever 'support' for Israel Anders Behring Breivik may have had in his abominable mind, it is not any kind of support we want" as it is said in an interview with JTA, but we do not censor information some people don't like. It is important to describe what kind of political beliefs he had. Also, countless other sources can be found, but I think these are more than enough to illustrate the point. JonFlaune (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he also had political beliefs in support for NDL, EDL, the International Freedom Alliance, the Army of Republika Srpska, Knights Templar, Crusade terror organizations, Democratic Party of Japan, Sixth Republic of South Korea etc. and many more. Are you willing to add them all to the lead? Pass a Method talk 15:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are political movements not political ideologys.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Slaterseven, also, if reliable sources demonstrate that these beliefs formed part of his key ideology, I would have no problem with adding that to the introduction (although, I think some of these beliefs are already covered by other descriptions that are included, i.e. Christian fundamentalist/nationalist and so forth). JonFlaune (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Non Jewish sources

http://www.islamdaily.org/en/default.aspx

http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/07/norway-massacre-and-nexus-of.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/121823-oslo-attacker-anders-breivik-eur-rights-hate-filled-rhetoric.html

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=244892

Is that enough for you?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No its not enough for me. Go read my reply here to find out why Pass a Method talk 16:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I find your method of splitting up and sequestering the discussion on various editor talk pages confusing. Could we not agree to discuss the matter here on the talk page of the article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you reply does not explain why you do not agree with these sources being adequate for the claim. Exactly what is you object to abut these sources? Also (and how many time do I have to say it) you are talking about political organisation, not ideologies. The EDL is mentioned as it is part of the right (for example), right is mentioned in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I already said it many times. It will clog the lead if we add all the political movements/ideologies he supports because there are so many Pass a Method talk 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Saddhiyama Sorry, but Slatersteven is annoyingly squeezing himself into every debate today so i was trying to escape from him. It seems he has a neurological need to repeat himself, with confusing spelling mistakes by the way Pass a Method talk 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Restict discusion to the subject of the artciel, I have responded to this on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No it won't because we do not include political movements or organisations, only ideologies. It’s only a problem because you are insisting on making it one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As sources have demonstrated, his political beliefs consist of about four or five key ideologies. As The Australian puts it: "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[11] We could simply use that quote. Also, why exactly do you believe Israeli/Jewish sources are unacceptable? (The Financial Times, and many other sources including Der Spiegel, The Huffington Post, etc., discuss him as a personification of "a new type of right-wing extremism" (Killer personifies rise of new far-right) which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam) JonFlaune (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it’s a workable compromise it seems to me that no justifiable reason has been given for objecting to far right Zionism beyond I don’t like it. There is no policy reason to exclude the phrase.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a link that says Hufftington post and Financial times said Breivik is pro-israel? Even if these sources do say that, i dont think it has enough weight (WP:WEIGHT) to be in the lead Pass a Method talk 17:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant unless you can provide a wiki policy that says these are the only sources we can use (also you have stated that even if they did you would not accept it, so why ask? You are basically saying that you will not accept it no matte how many sources we find, that is against policy). So you accept it should be in the article, just not in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes i think its too irrelevant to be in the lead. Theres many things in the main text but not in the lead. Pass a Method talk 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But it should go in the body of the article, see below.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

• Wiener Zeitung describes him as "a pro-Israeli right-wing extremist, who admires Churchill and a Norwegian anti-Nazi resistance fighter, a Christian Knight Templar and fighter against Islam, who is also a Freemason"[12]
• Christopher Hitchens notes that Breivik has "declared himself a passionate pro-Zionist as well as a sworn foe of all sorts of Islamization"[13]
• Dagbladet Information notes that Breivik's worldview "is anti-Muslim and anti-elitist, and its adherents support the state of Israel on the assumption that the country is a last bastion against Islamism."[14]
• Sydsvenskan notes that Breivik describes himself as "a sworn opponent of Islam, racism and Marxism, and a strong supporter of Christianity, cultural conservatism and Israel."[15]
• Tony Karon in TIME: Norway Terror Accused Breivik on 'the Jewish Question'
• Al Jazeera describes him as "virulently anti-Muslim and pro-Israel"[16]
• Massimo Introvigne writes that: "If Islam is Breivik’a archenemy, Judaism – or, rather, a quite imaginary Judaism, represented as a force mainly devoted to fight Islam – is depicted as a main friend and resource. Breivik is fanatically pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. He believes that the Jews are the most noble and brave Westerners. As a consequence, he hates Hitler."[17]
• Now even Abraham Foxman warns against "anti-Muslim Israel lovers", as the JTA reports[18]

JonFlaune (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Solution

Lead

"Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[19]"

Body

"He claims that the European Union is a project to create "Eurabia" and describes the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as being authorised by "criminal western European and American leaders". The Jerusalem Post also describes him as pro-Israel and strongly opposed to the "Islamisation of Europe". Saying his his manifesto included "extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"."

This both keeps the term (used in multiple RS) but removes it from the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a reasonable compromise (the last sentence ("JP also describes him [...] Saying his manifesto") needs to be tweaked). JonFlaune (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Body

"He claims that the European Union is a project to create "Eurabia" and describes the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia as being authorised by "criminal western European and American leaders". The Jerusalem Post also describes him as pro-Israel and strongly opposed to the "Islamisation of Europe". He has been accused of an extreme creed of Islamophobia and of far-right Zionism."

Any better?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How about: The Jerusalem Post describes him as pro-Israel and strongly opposed to the "Islamisation of Europe", and asserts that his manifesto includes "extreme screed of Islamophobia" and "far-right Zionism". -- JonFlaune (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Problom is that its not only the JP saying this. But I can live with this slight innacuracy if it helps reach a compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The JP lead paragraph says that his manifesto "lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism." JonFlaune (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I didn't read your comment properly. I agree others are saying this, but it's better to quote a source directly. JonFlaune (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay but i will edit the lead part so we dont get anything mixed up. You can edit the body-main text Pass a Method talk 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You know what?I like jonflaunes proposal Pass a Method talk 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK thats the text we run with. I'll leave PassaMethod to edit the lead as he has placed first dibs on it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel" doesn't make grammatical sense in the sentence, plus "far-right Zionism" is a direct quote to the source, no need to paint all pro-Israelis with his brush. You can be "pro-Israel" without being a far-right Zionist.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Many sources describe him as pro-Israel in a similar way to many sources describing Muslim terrorists as Muslim. It's not our fault/brush. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree tehre are sources that say he is pro-Israle, and I fail to see what does not make gramatical sense.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the sentence, "pro-Israel" is not an "ism" or an ideology like the others.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Huldra had the most logical and reasonable solution above. I agree with him 100%. It's important to note that his primary, driving force, was a deep intense hatred of Islam. His support of Serbian Nationalism and Zionism only followed from that. If we're going to include it in the lead it should be in that context. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Result

There are currently 7 opposes and 4 inclusion votes. Does this mean i can delete the "far-right zionist" part in the lead? Pass a Method talk 10:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed in principle to the compromise above.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

yes, but since that compromise four editors have opposed the zionist label Pass a Method talk 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a vote. We have cited at least 15 reliable sources favoring the inclusion. The opponents have cited zero sources and zero policy. We don't remove material just because some people don't like it. It's not sufficient to merely "oppose" something if you are unable to cite any sources (and/or policy) which support your point of view. So far in this discussion, there are 15 sources favoring the inclusion and no sources/valid arguments against. JonFlaune (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Your account is barely five days old. Where the hell have you come from? Have You heard about Wikipedia:Consensus? Pass a Method talk 15:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you heard of citing sources? Where are your sources? I've not seen any. JonFlaune (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jon is correct. Consensus is based on policy and sources. If someone's opinion isn't supported by policy and sources it isn't part of the consensus. That is how it works. It's not a democracy. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but i dont need to bring sources, since i'm not adding anything to the article and since the most prominent newspapers have refrained from mentioning anything related to zionism. His youtube video states nothing related to zionism whatsoever and is focused on Europe solely Pass a Method talk 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finding yet another source (Tony Karon in The National (Abu Dhabi)) which supports the inclusion of his views on Israel/Zionism, stating that he sees Zionists "as an essential ally in his global struggle" (my emphasis). Indeed you would need to find sources that contested the fact that Zionism is an important influence -- as now stated by close to 20 sources cited on this talk page and recognized by sources such as The Jerusalem Post[20], the JTA[21] and even the staunchly Zionist Israel National News[22] -- along with "cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, anti-Islamization, and Serbian paramilitarism" which are currently included in the introduction. There are far more sources supporting the inclusion of Zionism than "Serbian paramilitarism" btw. As a matter of fact, his support for Israel/Zionism is the best sourced fact in the entire article (due to constant attempts to delete it by some), also as far as demonstrating its significance is concerned (I wonder why no one is constantly trying to delete his support for Christianity, Serbian nationalism etc.). JonFlaune (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: The above comment refers to a source which was deleted following my response. The source in question is [23]. An editors' own interpretation of his Youtube videos is of course not a source at all. In his manifesto, he sums up his ideology, stating that "A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects". JonFlaune (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Personal life"

Can we please retract the name of his family member? Like step-mother he apparently never even have seen?? There is absolutely NO indication that any family member was implicated. They must also be going through hell now, and wikipedia should NOT add to that.

I find it so very much, much more important to find out which writers/bloggers/politicians influenced him. That is important. And not his mothers maiden name -or work. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The names have been widely used by the international press, especially the name of the father, who also gave a TV interview with some widely publicized comments. If we mention his father's profession (which I think is necessary), we have already identified him as they share the same last name and there is only one diplomat Breivik. His father is also notable in his own right as a high ranking (former Envoy, ministerråd) diplomat. JonFlaune (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that the names have been used widely, also his half-siblings names. (Indeed, Breivik himself writes extremely private things about them). That does not mean that we have to use them here. I agree that all the general back-ground (diplomat, job, divorce) should be there, everything except the names. The names add absolutely nothing to our knowledge of Breivik (and his actions). The family were not public figures before this, and his father made one -1- interview -filmed from behind - basically saying he wanted to be left alone. Having their names there gives the article a "News of the World"-feeling: just gossip.

There are far, far more important issues. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(Ps.: If you plan to start articles about every single former Norwegian Envoy, (ministerråd)...then his father is notable in his own right...)

Leaving the names of his siblings and distant relatives out is unproblematic. But the degree of media attention the father receives, and his borderline notability in his own right, in addition to the fact that when we mention his profession we already identity him, makes it harder to argue for the exclusion of his name. Google News has 2,511 results for "Jens Breivik". There is also commentary focusing entirely on him[24]. JonFlaune (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One blog? Count me impressed. And how do you account for the names of the mother and step-mothers? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "blog", it's a column merely labeled by the publisher (The Telegraph) as a "blog". The Telegraph has less than 40 invited such columnists[25]. There are 2,510 other articles out there, and obviously I didn't read all of them. The difference between the father and mother is that there are 2,511 Google News results for the father and 46 for the mother, that the father is a notable person, that the father is effectively identified even without mentioning his name directly, and that the father gave an interview with some widely publicized comments. JonFlaune (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's only one RS, we probably shouldn't mention his name. You can find all his family member's name with a bit of googling, but we don't have to help. If his father receives a bunch more attention, then maybe we should name him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me: Exactly where did you find that there is "only one RS"? As pointed out in this discussion, there are 2,511 reliable sources on the father. JonFlaune (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted the line naming his mother because it's a likely a violation of WP:BLP. The only thing the line said was police didn't think her life was in danger, and the only reference given didn't even support that. The line adds nothing about the topic. It only serves to invade her privacy, and possibly (though not likely) put her in danger or subject her to harassment. So, I think the deletion was justified. If someone disagrees please take it to the BLP:Noticeboard. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

2083: Chapter 2.72

Regarding chapter 2.72 of 2083, "Green is the new Red - Stop Enviro-Communism!" Breivik cites the incendiary rhetoric of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Fox News, and Alex Jones in support of ideas on climate change denial. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since AGW is a hoax and a fraud, the comments of Christopher Monckton are not incendiary rhetoric. And in regards to Breivik, "Even if the Devil says, 'two plus two is four', I will believe it." . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts are funny things. Don't quit your day job. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to remove manifesto from media

Australian news has reported on an Anonymous effort to remove / invalidate Anders' manifesto from web sources. [[26]] This appears to be happening to the article page, as refences to the manifesto or statements sourced from it appear to be being deleted under the guise wp:nor. Citing an reference is not original research, particularly where the author is considered notable. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, editors are not going to mine the manifesto for quotes and add them to the article. That is original research. I've removed several cases where editors have sampled bits of the primary source presumably because they think that it provides some kind of insight that is worthy of an encyclopedia. Since they aren't reliable sources it really doesn't matter what they think. Extracts from the manifesto need to be selected by reliable secondary sources not random people on the internet. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We should only cite passages that have received attention in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not strictly true; while we shouldn't mine the manifesto for quotes for synthesis, it can be used as a primary source of factual information as discussed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.86.128 (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but there shouldn't be cases where that is necessary. If RS don't care about a factoid in the primary source and haven't reported it, why should we ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced lead

Successive edits have taken the focus of the lead away from the massacre and it now weighs heavily towards an analysis of Breivik's manifesto. Breivik is notable primarily for his role in the massacre, moreso than for his ranting manifesto. The article no longer reflects the requirements of WP:LEAD in this regard. There should be greater detail on the bombing/shootings. WWGB (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The manifesto is the stated reason for and rationale behind the attacks. This is different from a random shooting; it was perpetrated as an political objective. Plus, there is the article on the attacks, for in-depth information on the attack itself. This article is about him personally.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with redthoreau Pass a Method talk 03:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The attack article has the info about the attack. Although this one should also be mostly about the attack, it isn't, and the lead reflects that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A stronger focus on his beliefs and his manifesto in this article -- as opposed to the article on the attack itself -- is warranted. JonFlaune (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Added 2083 manifesto on commons and linked

Added 2083 manifesto on commons and linked. Please do not remove either. If you have a problem discuss here. Wikipedia is not censored! Gabi Teodoru (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabi, the Manifesto has been previously uploaded to Commons and deleted after an AfD-equivalent there. The new one will most likely be deleted in the same way. You can try to upload it to English Wikipedia under "fair use", but I somewhat doubt it'll survive for too long here either (but that hasn't been tested yet so that just my opinion).

PS. I took the liberty of refactoring your section heading here as it made the table of contents kind of hard to read (and its contents were repeated in the first sentence anyway). If you would prefer to keep your original section heading please feel free to revert my change and accept my apologies. --Xover (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Occupation

There is no evidence that Breivik is a farmer or engineer, indeed he has an education in business and commerce only to the secondary school level. Please do not put any other occupation into the article, but explain here first why you think this is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpa (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why delete the information on the July 25 hearing? (Lead.)

The lead , or the body of the text, should give some proper information on the arraignment hearing on July 25. Now it only says:

He was charged with acts of terrorism under the criminal law and ordered held for eight weeks—the first four in solitary confinement—pending further court proceedings.

Somewhat absurdly, it doesn't even say when this order was issued. See topic no 37 above, which includes a link to the original court ruling in Norwegian.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Present wording:

On 25 July 2011, Breivik was charged with "destabilizing or destroying basic functions of society" and "creating serious fear in the population",[21] acts of terrorism under the criminal law, and ordered held for eight weeks — the first four in solitary confinement — pending further court proceedings.[10]

Date added and other improvements made—good!

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I.P. problems

One of the probems with I.P. editors is that they often swtich entire sentences around without regard for citations. Hence we add up with misplaced refs. Its too time consuming to re-read all the refs to see whether they add up, so i am often tempted to revert a long list of editors wholesale. Pass a Method talk 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You should not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is he really insane?

WP:NOTFORUM causa sui (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At least two lines describe Breivik as being insane. He was able to combine chemicals successfully to form a bomb. He was able to write in satrisfactory manner and knows how to use video editing software. He was ble to infiltrate many secured locations. I think we should remove the claim he is insane. Do you agree? Pass a Method talk 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) No being insane does not stop you doing any of these things (and I am not sure that many of them are true, for a start he seems to have failed repeatedly in business), I also assume you mean Combine Chemicals?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC) This was in reply to a comment that has been refactored.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Whether he is insane or not is irrelevant to this talk page, per WP:NOTFORUM. What matters is what the sources say. They state that this may be used in his defence, which is clearly relevant, but we can only report what others say on the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Is there any sources saying he was an engineer?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC) the chief of the norwegian Police Security Service don't think that he's insane [[27]].-- mustihussain (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I'm unaware of any sources that claim he was an engineer and the article doesn't claim that he was either. - JRheic (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC) @Slatersteven It said so in the norwegian or danish wikipedia yesterday. can't remember. They removed it now. Pass a Method talk 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC) So it's an unsourced claim, can we also stop refactoring posts as it makes it very hard to follow?Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC) He's not insane until declared legally to be so. A psychiatrist interviewed by Dagbladet doesn't believe he'll be declared insane.[28] JonFlaune (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) And we are not saying he is insane, we are saying that his lawyer (and others) have said he is insane.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, and that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. JonFlaune (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. He is evil and not insane. And the 'insanity defense' by his lawyer will be understood for what it is by WP readers. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC) There are all kinds of definitions for insanity, and clearly we're not in a position to diagnose (not even if he logged into the Science Refdesk and asked us). But just for purposes of discussion, insanity in the U.S. has sometimes been defined as an inability to tell right from wrong. Breivik's disclaimer that his account of his preparation was just a work of fiction, his concealment of his activities, statements about "risk of apprehension" and "I believe this will be my last entry" - they might be of relevance. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) He kew that what he did was wrong and acknowledged it to police. But someone with such extensive knowledge of European history can't be insane. he knew exactly what he was doing. Pass a Method talk 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC) He himself said it was “gruesome but necessary” to save us from Jihad and immigration. Similar to those who kill to bring the Twelfth Imam, he wanted to bring on the pushback by killing. Sanely, he was critical of leaders in Norway who press for a new Palestinian state, specifically: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder

One Norwegian professor of clinical psychology, Svenn Torgersen, has considered, based on what he has read, that Breivik had an "extreme narcissistic personality disorder".[29] machine trans. I think this is important to include in the article, and that this is more important when discussing how he could committ the massacre, rather than speculating too much on his ambiguous synthesized "political ideology". – Bellatores (t.) 15:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Zionism gone from lead?

At this moment, Zionist has been removed from his political details in the lead. Yesterday we agreed it needs to be there, and has been established to be true. Someone keeps removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableCoaster (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed a compromise that removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the suggested compromise, we were to include the following quote in the introduction instead: "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement" (source: The Australian, see above). However, I also think the introduction that has been relatively stable for the last few days[30] is well written and balanced. JonFlaune (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is currently against zionism being in the lead. If there are more votes than it could be reinstated Pass a Method talk 16:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes do not trump policy.16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What policy? The lead should have all his relevant ideologies listed. Zionist is one of them. Why is it being treated differently than "Serbian paramilitarism" or anti-Marxism? They're all equally not connected with shooting Norwegian 16 year olds, so if we're including some of the allegiances, you should include ALL of them. That would be balanced... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableCoaster (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik describes himself as a "Justiciar Knight of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon" (p. 802) of his text, and advises people not to "tell any potential NS [i.e. National Socialist] that you are pro-Israel etc. as he might view you as a hostile". Support for Israel is not identical to Zionism, as people support Israel for different reasons. The reference to the Temple of Solomon also does not imply support for Zionism. While Breiviks text is admissible here as a self-published source about himself, we cannot make interpretations of that text. Breivik rather is a Judeo-Christian fundamentalist than a Christian fundamentalist, and there is of course the possibility that reliable sources will characterize his political ideas as Zionist (which may well be correct). We will have to wait for more reliable sources, including books, scholarly articles, etc., which may not be available for some time.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no votes, no one is voting and no one can count votes. It's important to avoid misusing the term "consensus". Issues raised must be "legitimate concerns". That means comments like "The more we learn about him the more serious his mental illness seems. I'm not sure if we can designate someone with serious mental illness as having an ideology" can be ignored straightaway since it has nothing to do with how wikipedia works and nothing to do with consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note that he has not been declared legally insane (and judging by comments from Norwegian psychiatrists, he is unlikely to be). JonFlaune (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of new readers, some of the sources cited here (and some new ones) which demonstrate that what the Jerusalem Post calls "far right Zionism" is one of a handful of core ideological influences, both according to Breivik's manifesto and according to numerous reliable sources:

1. First, as he states in his manifesto, this is a core idea of his,

   "I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now). Islam must be re-classified as a political ideology and the Quran and the Hadith banned as the genocidal political tools they are" (p. 650)

   "A modern cultural conservative (nationalist), anti-Jihad right wing alternative is emerging in Western Europe. A majority of Western European right wing groups are all anti-Islamisation and pro-Israel" (p. 1400)

2. Now, is this significant? Yes, according to the Financial Times, where an article[31] discusses the rise of "a new type of right-wing extremism" which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam, and asserts that the killer personifies this type of extremism.
3. Also the Huffington Post points out:

   "Today, Europe faces a new threat. The pan-European anti-Muslim movement includes leading individuals who embrace "Judeo-Christian values" and express their undying support for Israel instead of the anti-Semitism that is so central to the neo-Nazi movement."[32]

4. And as Israel National News notes,

   "Breivik called himself a strong supporter of Zionism, praised Theodor Herzl the founder of Zionism, and attacked the European political establishment because he saw it as being anti-Israel"[33]

5. Der Spiegel describes the movement he is part of as:

   "pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel -- but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist"[34]

6. Also Deutsche Welle has an article on "Islamhasser und Israelfreunde"[35]
7. Götz Aly commenting in Deutschlandradio:

   "He stands up against all those who support the Palestinian claims against Israel, whether they are Palestinians, Germans, left or right-wing radicals; no matter: He supports Israel. He sees himself as a Christian fundamentalist. He finds his [ideological] roots mostly in radical Christian fundamentalism in the US."[36]

8. Like the European anti-muslim pro-Israeli far-right, and the far right in Israel itself, Breivik of course is critical of "leftwing Jews". As the Jerusalem Post points out, he states that:

   "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"[37]

9. The Jerusalem Post concludes that he

   "lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"[38]

10. The Australian sums it all up:

    "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[39]

Additional sources which have been cited:

1. Wiener Zeitung describes him as

   "a pro-Israeli right-wing extremist, who admires Churchill and a Norwegian anti-Nazi resistance fighter, a Christian Knight Templar and fighter against Islam, who is also a Freemason"[40]

2. Christopher Hitchens notes that Breivik has

   "declared himself a passionate pro-Zionist as well as a sworn foe of all sorts of Islamization"[41]

3. Dagbladet Information notes that Breivik's worldview

   "is anti-Muslim and anti-elitist, and its adherents support the state of Israel on the assumption that the country is a last bastion against Islamism."[42]

4. Sydsvenskan notes that Breivik describes himself as

   "a sworn opponent of Islam, racism and Marxism, and a strong supporter of Christianity, cultural conservatism and Israel."[43]

5. Tony Karon in TIME: Norway Terror Accused Breivik on 'the Jewish Question'
6. Tony Karon, this time in The National (Abu Dhabi)[44]

   "Breivik doesn't like all Jews, of course; he only likes Zionists, who he sees as an essential ally in his global struggle."

7. Al Jazeera describes him as

   "virulently anti-Muslim and pro-Israel"[45]

8. Massimo Introvigne writes that:

   "If Islam is Breivik’a archenemy, Judaism – or, rather, a quite imaginary Judaism, represented as a force mainly devoted to fight Islam – is depicted as a main friend and resource. Breivik is fanatically pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. He believes that the Jews are the most noble and brave Westerners. As a consequence, he hates Hitler."[46]

9. Robert Sibley of the Ottawa Citizen quotes psychologist Kevin MacDonald, who describes his ideology as

   "cultural conservative, very opposed to ethnocentrism as a strategy, very positive about the Vienna School, staunchly pro-Israel (which he sees as beset by militant Islam), and very hostile toward Islam."[47]

10. Klassekampen writes in an article on Breivik's ideology:

    "A British anti-immigration protest movement, an anti-Islam Pan-European blog, and conservative Zionists, were among Breivik's main inspirations".[48]

11. Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review writes that

    "Norway’s Christian terrorist, Anders Breivik, also adhered to the Vienna school of thought and his views are shockingly similar to Wilders’. Breivik’s over 1,500 pages-long manifest encompasses the urge to purify Christian Europe from Islam and calls for support for Israel. In essence, the manifest reads as a violent adaptation of the Freedom Party’s program."[49]

12. Die Zeit quotes Norwegian terrorism expert Helge Lurås, who says:

    "He sees Israel as allies in the war against Islam. [...] He sees the cultural element of Christianity as a fundamental part of the European identity."[50]

13. The Helsinki Times notes that

    "He declares himself to be an anti-Islamic, pro-Israel, conservative Christian"[51]

A few other sources were also mentioned

• http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/07/norway-massacre-and-nexus-of.html
• http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=244892

Criticism/response from Jewish/Israeli groups:

1. "Whatever 'support' for Israel Anders Behring Breivik may have had in his abominable mind, it is not any kind of support we want", as the JTA reports[52]
2. Abraham Foxman warns against "anti-Muslim Israel lovers", as the JTA reports[53]
3. In an op-ed in Ynet News, Raphael Mimoun writes

   "Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed at least 76 people in Norway on Friday, described himself as being "pro-Zionism" and "pro-Israeli nationalism." This is not a coincidence."

   He concludes that

   "Israeli leaders should be careful about forming alliances with Europe's far Right racists"[54]

4. The Jewish Journal writes that Breivik is

   "a self-proclaimed Zionist, someone whose 1,300-page online manifesto praises Israel, the Jews, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and even Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism"

   and that

   "this 32-year-old man has redefined the stereotype of the European right-wing fundamentalist"[55]

5. The JTA notes that Breivik's

   "proto-Zionist viewpoint is shared by a number of far-right leaders around Europe"[56]

6. In an essay in Ynet, Ziv Lenchner writes that many right-wing Israelis express support for Breivik, arguing that "the overwhelming response is schadenfreude"[57]
7. Dagbladet Information on right-wing Israelis expressing support for Breivik;

   "It is not compassion for the victims of the terrorist attacks in Oslo that dominates the public debate in Israel: 'They hate Israel, so they have asked for it', a reader of Ynet writes" (lead)[58]

8. Tom Segev in Haaretz:

   "One could not ignore the fact that many Israelis did not entirely dismiss the Norwegian murderer's affinity for Israel."[59]

9. The Jewish Weekly notes that

   "Breivik’s extreme nationalistic beliefs are documented in a 1,500-page manifesto. Among other things, those beliefs seem to incorporate a loathing of Islam and admiration for Israel"

   pointing out

   "the day before the killings, the teens on Utoya Island had gathered for a workshop on promoting BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel)."

   and

   "It should be crystal clear that the Israel in Breivik’s diseased mind, which he sees as some sort of bulwark against multiculturalism, is not the real Israel"[60]

Many other sources can be found.

The current introduction describes his ideology in this way:

Breivik's far-right militant ideology is described in an online manifesto 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, posted by Breivik on the day of the attacks under the anglicised pseudonym Andrew Berwick. His ultranationalist manifesto lays out his worldview, which includes support for varying degrees of cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, anti-Islamization, "far-right Zionism", and Serbian paramilitarism. It argues for the violent annihilation of Islam, "cultural Marxism", and multiculturalism, to preserve a Christian Europe.

This is well written, balanced and consistent with numerous reliable sources (e.g., The Australian, the Jerusalem Post, Der Spiegel, the Financial Times) that sum up the most important aspects of his ideology. If we mention his support for Serbian nationalism (only one source; eurasiareview.com), we certainly need to mention the much better sourced support for Zionism, which also appears more significant, again according to numerous sources such as the ones just mentioned. JonFlaune (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for collecting these sources! Not all of them are reliable sources, per WP:RS, but some are, and take together, they provide a strong indication that one aspect of Breivik's political ideology can be described as "right-wing Zionism". I would therefore not object to the inclusion of the term in the lead, and I would support to include it in the article's body. Apart from this, I would prefer to get rid of the quotation marks in the lead. Instead of "right-Zionism" in quotation marks, we could write "a right-wing interpretation of Zionism" without quotation marks, and it would be better to write "opposed to liberal and emancipatory cultural movements and developments, which he refers to as "cultural Marxism"", as we should not use Breivik's own words (or notions derived from his own ideological belief system) to describe his ideology (in analogy to WP:INUNIVERSE).  Cs32en Talk to me  20:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to "right-wing interpretation of Zionism", but maybe it would be a better idea to discuss how his interpretation of Zionism is different from mainstream Zionism in more detail in the body of the article, also mentioning some of the criticism of this description from Jewish groups. "far-right Zionism" from the current introduction is a direct quote from The Jerusalem Post, hence the quotation marks. JonFlaune (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post (hardly a biased source against Zionism) titled an entire article around the fact that he supports "far-right Zionism", not the regular kind. That is why it should be in the lead - so readers will understand that he does not support mainstream Zionism.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel is front and centre in Breivik's ideology and worldview. For instance, he expresses great admiration for both legalized and practical racism in Israel against non-Jews, who are mainly Arab Muslims. I don't why it is not mentioned in the first few lines, unless there is an organized effort on wikipedia to dissassociate him from Israel and Zionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timretbn (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A caution against WP:SYN

Hold up a minute here. The issue isn't whether we can find a number of sources that mention something about Israel in connection with Breivik. I'm sure you can find an endless number of them if you went looking. The issue is one of weight. For instance, of the sources quoted above, only the Jerusalem Post emphasises this aspect; the other sources are considerably more vague. This is exactly what one would expect: the purpose of the Jerusalem Post, its job, is to focus on Israeli aspects of an issue (that's not an accusation of bias any more than saying the Financial Times is focussed on financial affairs), so it's entirely expected that they would focus on that one detail. To start from there and then find supporting quotes from other sources is actually synthesis in practical effect. The way to approach it is to go to the other sources to find out what they emphasise, and then to pick bits from the Jerusalem Post or other sources for details that are too specific for the general sources to cover.
Every special interest or narrowly scoped publication in the world is going to cherry-pick the one or few aspects of this whole event that is of particular interest to them and their readership, and then focus disproportionately on that one aspect. We need to be extremely careful that we don't use these as a starting point and elaborate from there.
And as best I can tell, Breivik wasn't so much pro- anything in particular, as much as he was anti-Islam (or Islamist if we're quoting him); and almost literally any enemy of his enemy was his “friend”.
PS. This is in a sub-thread to emphasise that it's not directed at any one editor in the above discussion; not intended in response to any single post above; and not intended to argue in favour or against any one position in the thread. I use the argument for inclusion as an example because that's what would trigger concerns about synthesis, not necessarily because I am against inclusion here. The short version is “be very carefull”, nothing more. --Xover (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the entire summary above? In an article on "Breivik's web of ideology", Klassekampen writes that "conservative Zionists" are among his "main inspirations". Summing up his ideology, The Australian writes that "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement." The Financial Times, Der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle and others discuss the rise of "a new type of right-wing extremism" which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam. In contrast, only one source supports "Serbian paramilitarism" being a central idea. Breivik's far-right pro-Israeli stance has been widely reported on also outside Israel. I don't think this article contains any other fact where there are so many sources demonstrating it to be significant. JonFlaune (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the Serbian paramilitarism needs to be removed from the lede, looking at about thirty major media outlets I also see only one our of 34 that even mentions it. 72.75.44.109 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read his writing? Among other things, he warns you not to let nationalists know you are pro israel when you buy weapons from them.... His Pro-Zionist views are clearly, and repeatedly stated by him in his manifesto, and have been repeatedly reported in mainstream news outlets. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindoo

There have been repeated attempts top claim that Breivik is a practising Hindoo. Only one source seems to support this http://www.todaysviews.com/2011/07/26/anders-breivik-hindu-terror-in-norway and I am not sure this is RS (I have raised the issue on RSN). Should we exclude this until either this source is found R$S or better sources are found to support the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is total bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is just another nonsense claim by an unreliable source. Prolog (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is well written and is 100% true so it should be added...He may not be a practicing Hindu but someone influenced by Hindutva and the sources claim that and that sentence cannot be deleted --Johnmylove (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'source' is nothing but some random website pushing an anti-Hindu agenda. Stop wasting everyone's time with garbage like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And it is the only source you provided that contains that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this source is actually very interesting and perceptive. Using it to claim Breivik was a practicing Hindu is absurd, of course - it's a rhetorical statement, and I don't think the author pretends otherwise. But the author pulls together everything Breivik did to commend Hindus for being (on the occasions he noted) anti-Muslim, and points out how far his rhetoric went to invite Hindus, Jews, and atheists into his big happy family. This is a crucial point, because it shows that his motivation is anti Muslim, not pro Christian. The article is not a source of fact, of course - the manifesto is - but it's a source of synthesis that Wikipedians aren't allowed to make themselves. Wnt (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think many would suggest those are mutually exclusive motivations, whichever one/s he subscribes to. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalism

What about his support for hindu nationalism:

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Norway-killer-Breiviks-common-cause-with-Hindu-nationalists/822839/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.246.122 (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/norwegian-killers-manifesto-supports-hindutva/170496-3.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.246.122 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

this should be included..how can they not provide this content when this was part of his work? --Johnmylove (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added these references and pulled out a sentence in the lead. I think it's important - in the cause of peace here and elsewhere - to recognize that Breivik expressed strong praise for several different religions he perceived as anti-Islamic. We don't actually need to make this a place to debate Palestine, Kosovo, and Kashmir - everyone on all sides should be able to recognize that he eagerly pushed himself by the side of anyone he saw as fighting Muslims. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it took someone a grand total of 6 minutes to revert my edit in its entirety, citing "ongoing discussion". [61] Funny how they're never so fast to actually do that discussion... Wnt (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Zionism Cathegory

I know he is said to have "far-right Zionists" attitudes but is this enough for being in the "Zionists" Category? What are the sources for such claim? One issue is that he was a sympathizer of Israel, but Zionist? Should everybody who supports Israel be in that Category, all politicians, actors, musicians etc who support Israel? 88.102.95.151 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the Zionism category should be removed. On the other hand, as long as he's included in "Christian terrorism" and "Neo-fascist terrorism" (which is quite strange as sources describe him as anti-fascist with Churchill and Max Manus as his main idols -- like other neoconservatives, he sees Islam, the left and the fascists as his main enemies, and claims they are equally evil), he should be included in "Zionist terrorism", or all of these categories should be removed. JonFlaune (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; I removed that category -- some of the others should by probably removed too.. 88.102.95.151 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Cultural marxism"

The lead includes a link to Cultural Marxism, but when Breivik used that term, he used it in a very different sense than the description in the article, i.e. as a term for the left in general (or possibly anything to the left of his own far-right stance). JonFlaune (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The word cultural marxism is used as a code word within the anti-muslim-immigration movement. It doesn't have anything to do with any real marxism, it's more of a strawman ideology that denotes any liberal or socialist pro immigration and pro multi cultural stance, with the added conspiracy twang of the CMs wanting to eradicate the european christian civilization. Someone should write an article about it, it's quite widely used. 79.136.23.59 (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-feminism?

The point was raised in the July 27 Democracy Now! broadcast that anti-feminism is a major ingredient in Breivik's ideology as described in his manifesto. Do you think that Breivik's anti-feminism should be mentioned?

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is part of his ideology, but a major part? I don't think so. I definitely don't think it's significant enough to put in the lead of the article. The "Politics" section has two subheadings so far "Anti-Islam" and "PCCTS, "Knights Templar" order". There should probably also be an "Other beliefs" section to cover other beliefs of Breivik's that he put less emphasis upon, including anti-feminism. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One reference, Michelle Goldberg:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/24/norway-massacre-anders-breivik-s-deadly-attack-fueled-by-hatred-of-women.html

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/27/breivik-anti-feminism?CMP=twt_gu

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian citizen

Resolved

per this edit  Cs32en Talk to me  03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik is primarily known for being the self-professed perpetrator of the attacks, not for being a Norwegian citizen. Therefore, the lead should read "Anders Behring Breivik is the self-professed perpetrator ... He is a Norwegian citizen ..."  Cs32en Talk to me  01:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead is currently in great shape

Hi, just looked at the lead and it is in the best shape I have seen for several days. It is succinct, uncluttered from excessive references and not argumentative. Let's hope we all continue to work together to develop a good article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Which version are you referring to? The lead was briefly drastically altered by a user (who also deleted large parts of the article) with no discussion or justification, but he was quickly reverted by others. The introduction that has been relatively stable for the last few days[62] is indeed very well written, succinct and addresses the most important topics. The introduction following the massive text deletion (until it was reverted after a few minutes) was very badly written and failed to include even the most essential information, e.g. it described his ideology only vaguely as "far-right militant" (which could be any right-wing ideology) and failed to even mention his hatred of Muslims/Islam, which is generally agreed upon to be the most central aspect of his ideology. JonFlaune (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that the lead remain true to WP:MOSINTRO. Intensive referencing should not be necessary in the lead, as all relevant points will have been covered in the body of the article where detailed citations are necessary. The lead should draw in the reader and entice them to read on. I currently see almost 30 references in the lead, which is hardly welcoming to the casual reader. It's beyond me why we need five references to confirm one sentence! WWGB (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving mistakes

I noticed the malformed archiving (brackets do not go at the end of the target pages), corrected it and reverted the most recent archiving until the next go round of the bot. However, the previous archiving here which may not be undone sent those 19 threads to never-never land as the target pages do not exist. Editors may recover the posts from the edit history and manually archive them into Archive 1.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, an older thread of 3 posts need archived from the edit history. That covers the only three occurrences of Miszabot that I see.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have recovered the 3 and 19 threads to archive 1 [63] (at the beginning although there was some manual archiving which happened inbetween so it probably didn't belong at the beginning but I was lazy to work out where it did belong). To help check I purposely saved my edit after cutting and pasting the 19 threads [64] which suggests I correctly cut everything. I also re-added the headers which were removed by the bot [65]. Edit: New link to my changes [66]. I moved the stuff archived after the manual archiving to the proper place. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

References section

This section contains various references used in the sections above.

lede issue

Someone insist on this first paragraph for the lede:

Anders Behring Breivik (Norwegian pronunciation: ['ɑnəʂ 'beːɾiŋ 'bɾæɪʋiːk]; born 13 February 1979) is a Norwegian right-wing extremist and the confessed perpetrator of the July 22, 2011 Norway attacks, with 172 victims of whom 76 died. The terrorist attacks included detonating a car bomb in downtown Oslo, Norway, near the offices of the Prime Minister, killing eight and wounding 26. This was followed by a mass shooting on the nearby island of Utøya, where he attacked teenagers attending a Norwegian Labour Party youth camp, killing 68 and wounding 66.

I insist this version is better:

Anders Behring Breivik (Norwegian pronunciation: ['ɑnəʂ 'beːɾiŋ 'bɾæɪʋiːk]; born 13 February 1979) is a Norwegian right-wing extremist and the confessed perpetrator of the July 22, 2011 Norway attacks, with 172 victims of whom 76 died.

The primary reason is that the deleted sentence goes into details already well covered in the article about the attack, which is already wikilinked, and further more, only editorializes the succinct information already given in the first sentence. This article is about the perpetrator, not the attacks, and a lede is an introduction to the subject of the article. It defies logic, writing style, and even quality to insist in duplicating information and add length to what could be succinct and easy to read.--Cerejota (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The first description is too long, and the second one is too short. My suggestion:

Anders Behring Breivik (Norwegian pronunciation: ['ɑnəʂ 'beːɾiŋ 'bɾæɪʋiːk]; born 13 February 1979) is a Norwegian right-wing extremist. He has confessed to have perpetrated a sequence of two terrorist attacks in Norway in 2011. In the attacks, a bombing in Oslo and a killing spree in a youth camp in Utøya, Norway, he killed 76 people.

We don't need sources for the attacks here, as the article 2011 Norway attacks, as well as this article's body, contain all necessary sources.

  Cs32en Talk to me  05:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that a casual reader should not have to flip to another article to learn what Breivik did. Did he launch a chemical attack? Did he unleash a swarm of deadly snakes? The current article is entirely silent on this important matter. I understand that this is not the article about the attack, but it should at least be acknowledged what he did, that is, bombings and shootings. (PS I am happy with the Cs32en suggestion.) WWGB (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That is why we build the web and include the link to the 2011 Norway attacks page. This invites the reader to satiate their curiosity in the appropriate article. Yes, if they want to find out if he screamed "Snakes on the motherfucking Plane" they go to the article. I do not want a casual reader to think they got all the information they needed to get from this article. I like Cs32en suggestion, with the caveat that I strongly feel we should avoid descriptors with emotional charge such as "terrorism" in an encyclopedia article - but that is indeed a different discussion. Since my 3RR with you WWGB is over in that sense, I am inserting Cs32en's version, and opening the discussion on "terrorist" later on.--Cerejota (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the wounded, which were in the original and my version, but not on Cs32en. --Cerejota (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversy about lede content

A recent edit describes Breivik's text as "ultranationalist" and restored in-universe descriptions of "anti-Islamization" and "cultural Marxism". Breivik's text is not ultranationalist, he is a self-proclaimed adherent of a non-nationalist Christian military order (which may or may exist outside of Breivik's mind). He is not a warrior against Islamization, although he likes to present himself in this way, but an islamophobic extremist. By describing this as "anti-Islamization", we would imply that Islamization would exist as a factual phenomenon. Furthermore, Breivik says that he fights against "cultural Marxism", but the ideas, institutions, and social developments that he pretends to attack are not described as Marxist, nor do these people (i.e. the Norwegian social democrats) see themselves as Cultural Marxist.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Cs32, without WP:reliable sources (per WP:Verify) then your theory (although probably correct) is WP:OR and inadmissible. You need to locate sources that discuss his view of "cultural Marxism", "Christian warrior-ism" etc. As for Islamaphobia, there is little doubt that he suffers from this unfortunate affliction - but he also presents himself as battling Islamization and many of the sources take note of this.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the issue. There are reliable sources that describe something as being X, we should attribute and sustain this. Reliable sources agree, verifiably on a series of facts a Breivik's beliefs, and about his manifesto. We should report that, and we do.

However, in general, I have a problem with using adjectives in the encyclopedic voices. We are not a newspaper, even when newspaper are our sources, and we shouldn't speak like one. SO I am not entirely sure we should, for example, describe the manifesto as "ultra-nationalist", in part because very few sources have done that, and in part because we can just say "The manifesto says..." without having to patronize our readers and spoon feeding them descriptions, in particular ones that stretch NPOV. Just because no one will take Breivik's side does it mean we all of the sudden suspend NPOV. Its a WP:5P policy, not even WP:IAR applies to NPOV. Sources, generally, are not NPOV, but we are. So we do not parrot sources, we adapt sources. --Cerejota (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One source says, for example, that Breivik says he wants to save Europe and Norway "from a multiculturalism that he calls cultural Marxism" [67]. There may be more sources on this, of course. Most sources do not use any adjectives when referring to the "manifesto", and those that do sometimes characterize it as "rambling", "hate-filled" etc. A few use the term "ultra-nationalists", but these are too few to justify using the term here, as a general description of that text.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

History of terrorism and revolution

He is also an anti-bureaucrat, because by "manifesto" the EU was tyranny of bureaucracy, as the USSR (Marxism). So we can conclude that he terrorists whose ideals are the struggle for freedom against tyranny of bureaucracy. During the Cold War existed are more numerous nationalist terrorist organization from East European countries against communist tyranny and bureaucracy whose aim was the liberation of their countries of the Communist bureaucrats. They commited terror against civilians. It is possible that he the terrorists on that type, so you should write in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.26.191 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not possible. Your proposition is completely original research based on speculation about information contained in a primary source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the Manifesto to the 2083 a mother Europe expects the Great Anti-bureaucratic revolution led by conservatives, similar to this Anti-bureaucratic revolution.

You need RS drawing that conclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics

"He sets the cost of the preparations for the attacks at 317,000 euros - "130,000 out of pocket and 187,500 euros in lost revenue over three years." Something's wrong there. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My maths may be out but 3+ 8 is 11 (110,000) 1 + 1 is 2 (200,000) and 7 + ) is 7 5 + 5 = 5I make that 317,500. What does the source actualky say?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The original source uses the exact same figures:

Enligt Anders Behring Breivik har arbetet kostat honom 317.000 euro – ”130.000 ur egen ficka och 187.500 euro i utebliven inkomst under tre år.”

"According to Anders Behring Breivik, the work cost him 317,000 euros - "130,000 out of his own pocket and 187,500 in lost revenue over three years."" You have to talk to Dagens Nyheter themselves to get the correct figures. JIP | Talk 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's fine if Breivik himself is the one that can't do maths, or the source, but either way it deserves a "[sic]" because the two figures add up to 317,500 euros, not 317,000. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Christian terrorist"

I like how Wikipedia prominently displays the religion of Anders Breivik, and calls him a "Christian terrorist" in the first sentence, but yet, doesn't do likewise for, say, Mohamed Atta. --Andrew1193 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of that is to be patently offensive to Christian wikipedians in order to get them riled up and fighting mad. Don't let it. This will not withstand the neutrality test as it is blatantly using wikipedia as a vehicle for personal polemicism and bigotry. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, nobody is used to seeing the word "terrorist" beside anything else other than "Muslim" or "Islam". So I am to believe that when Wikipedia says "Christian terrorist", it is using it as a "vehicle for personal polemicism and bigotry", yet when "Muslim terrorist" or "Islamic terrorist" is used, it is simply neutral reporting? Hardly! ReliableCoaster (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, "the purpose" ? I would have thought that it's much more likely that no one cares about <insert random capitalized belief system> wikipedians and that most things can be explained by stupidity lack of familiarity with policy. It's just about what the sources say in the end. If many sources describe Breivik as a X terrorist it will be in the article (and may even make it into the lead if there are enough of them). If they don't, it won't. There's a good case to be made for Atta's infobox to include the religion attribute based on the existing contents of the article and the importance of that component in the crime. There's also a case to be made for the lead to say something about it, but the place to argue for those changes based on policy and sources is over at Mohamed Atta. He's dead so WP:BLPCAT doesn't apply. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since mainstream sources do not call him a Christian terrorist, neither should we. TFD (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to delete another editors comment, sorry for that accident of timing. His book claims his fellow cell members are 'christian atheists' - what can anyone make of that oxymoron?

He criticizes the Pope (CHRISTIAN leader) for talking to Muslims - why him and not leaders of other religions that have talks with Islam? That means that obviously Christianity is something more to him. States that he is/wants to return Europe to that of the Knights Templar (CHRISTIAN group), has a cross on his shoulder/chest in some pics, sounds pretty Christian to me. ReliableCoaster (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ofm RS say he is a christian terrorist then we eport that. If they do not we can't assume it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, if he's not a Christian terrorist, then there are no Muslim terrorists either. If you follow the religion that carefully you don't do mass murder.

In the real world, with real world practical definitions, he is a Christian, and a terrorist, and his terror is inspired by Christianity because he thinks that Europe should be Christian and he is trying to kick out all the Moslems.Teapeat (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the "Christian terrorist" category should be removed. What does it mean?

• If it means that he was a Christian and a terrorist -- this should be solved by categories "Christians" and category "Terrorists". It does not make sense to create a category for any set of other "simple categories".
• If it mean that his terrorist attack has some direct connection to his Christianity (i.e. it was a religious attack), I don't see many sources for this.. 88.102.95.151 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Knights Templar

I found this on Yahoo!: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/did-medieval-knights-templar-influence-norway-gunman-161312473.html

Some new Knights Templar organization claims his membership. He has a "mentor" in the group. The Knights Templar are Roman Catholic, thus he may be Roman Catholic, but he claims otherwise. Also, the Knights Templar (like common Catholics) don't encourage terrorism, so I'll look more in to it. TomUSA 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Compression garment

The caption of the second image says that's what he's wearing, but when I read compression garment, it doesn't seem to apply. Is that the best way to describe what he's wearing? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

He's wearing a SKINS brand Chrome compression suit. Here's a descriptive piece and here is the specific Chrome version that he is wearing. It is like a spandex diveskin.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian...

Just want to note that Progress Party.... "libertarianism was earlier a component of its ideology, this has in practice gradually more or less vanished from the party" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Party_%28Norway%29

I am not familiar with Wiki policy but doesn't it seem weird to include libertarian if this is true? It seems to misrepresent Breivik as a former libertarian, when in fact he was in a youth organisation promoting "right-wing populism in the 1990s"? As I said, I am not familiar with Wiki policy so just wondering 62.20.230.62 (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

In the above discussion [68], there seems to be a consensus against the addition of a zionist motivation in the intro. However i keep being reverted when i remove the phrase "far-right zionist". Any thoughts? Pass a Method talk 10:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is evidence that there seems to be a consensus against the addition that is consistent with the policy WP:CONSENSUS. I've seen you use the word consensus several times now to refer to something that isn't the same as WP:CONSENSUS. That discussion is full of nonsense that has nothing to do with policy e.g.

• Oppose – This is Nazi crap from...
• INCLUDE No doubt about his zionism, just read his manifesto...
• Oppose The more we learn about him the more serious his mental illness seems...
• Oppose he was not a practicing Zionist

The evidence itself, the sources compiled to support inclusion are rather compelling to say the least. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that while around 30 sources, many of supreme quality (Financial Times, Der Spiegel, The Jerusalem Post and others) have been provided to demonstrate that zionism is one of around four, maybe five, core ideological influences, no sources (no sources at all) indicating otherwise have been provided. The lead includes a poorly sourced assertation that "Serbian paramilitarism" is a core idea of his, there is only one source of lesser quality supporting it, yet the same people who are trying to remove zionism because they "don't like it", are not trying to remove "Serbian paramilitarism", in fact, they were the ones adding it. No fact in this article is better sourced (including sources specifically addressing its significance) than the fact that pro-zionism is one of his handful of core beliefs. JonFlaune (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

INCLUDE How many times? He's a Christian and Zionist. I appreciate that other Zionists and Christians are desperately trying to distance themselves from him, but quite a few sources high quality sources (including his own manifesto) say he definitely is both, and far fewer sources say he isn't, and they tend to be lower quality. This is what militant Christian fundamentalists look like.Teapeat (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise I think we could say pro-Israeli but leave out Zionist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik is not a Zionist (he is a Christian fundamentalist, after all), but a staunch supporter of Zionism, for strategic reasons. I haven't had time to look at the sources closely, but if the sources would substantiate that interpretation, it may help to resolve this controversy.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What the lead says is:

"In [the manifesto] he lays out his xenophobic worldview, which includes support for varying degrees of cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, anti-Islamization, far-right Zionism and Serbian paramilitarism."

It doesn't say he's a zionist, only that he supports, inter alia, far-right Zionism (source: The Jerusalem Post). JonFlaune (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If i recall correctly, in his manifesto, he talks more about supporting Hindus against muslims in Kashmir, so by that logic the lede should include "Indian Army" as one of the ideologies he supports too. Pass a Method talk 14:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if reliable secondary sources says so. If you recall we don't use the manifesto as a source because as a primary source that would be OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Or more correctly, if reliable sources say that his views on India are part part of his core ideological beliefs. JonFlaune (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but we could say Far right Hindoo nationalism (if RS make the claim).Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the sentence in the lead is open to different interpretations. If we read "support for ... far-right Zionism", then we would also need to read "support for anti-Islamization". However, his world-view is anti-Islamic, he does not just support that ideology as a political reality. As an aside, I am deeply appalled by the use of the word "anti-Islamization" in the text. It uses Breiviks own words to describe his beliefs, and presupposes that some form of Islamization would be happening in Europe. We should describe Breviks thinking in words that are external to his belief system: they are islamophobic.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with that last point (the Jpost article simply said his worldview included "extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"). JonFlaune (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian right-wing terrorist

That should be changed. I am a right wing too, but that does not make me a terrorist. It would sound better if it read "right wing extremist" instead. Norum 15:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The media have portrayed him as a far-right, but actually he is a Neocon Christian right. The American-style Christian right has nothing to do with the European nationalist rights. --95.236.81.67 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.libertariantoday.com/2011/07/anders-breivik-christian-conservative.html

The talk page is for discussing changes based on policy and what sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Giving him in that label doesn't label all Norwegian right-wingers as terrorists. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That is how terrorism experts are describing him. The standard typology of terrorism groups them as left-wing, right-wing, religious, nationalist, etc. Does not imply that those groups are inherently terrorist. TFD (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Subsection: Islam

There is a subsection on Breivik's political views about Islam. To briefly state my opinion on different possible titles, (a) "Anti-Islamization" assumes that some kind of Islamization would be actually happening, (b) "Anti-Islam" could also mean that he would just reject Islam as a religion, believing that Allah is a false God, (c) "Islamophobia" best describes the amalgam of racism, religious fervor, and paranoia that characterizes Breivik's thinking, (b) "Anti-islamic racism" also does this, and may be a compromise wording.

To gain some clarity, I am submitting the possible subsection titles to a vote.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This list has been expanded by other editors.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Islam / Islam in Europe

Anti-Islam

Islamism / Islamism in Europe

Anti-Islamism

Islamization / Islamization of Europe

Anti-Islamization

Eurabia

• Support I disagree with Cs32en's assessment that islamization is not happening in Europe. Major newspapers such as BBC have acknowledged it.[69]. Right-wing politicians in Europe focus on islam is another clue. As are terms such as Eurabia and Londonistan. Pass a Method talk 22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

While I actually think that your view is not supported by actual facts, this is not the issue. We cannot imply that "Islamization" would exist unless there were a clear consensus in scholarly and news sources that this would be the case.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal remark, unrelated to the discussion on improving the article.
Say that to the Stop Islamisation of Europe Pass a Method talk 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Spread of Islam

Islamophobia

• Support See comment at the top of this section.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support A common word, easily understood, and with a meaning entirely consistent with the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic racism

• Oppose: Islam is not a race. ~Asarlaí 19:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Breivik was, according to the sources, a member of the Church of Norway, which is Lutheran. He stated that he intended to attend a church service in a church belonging to the Church of Norway before the attack. There are no sources, to my knowledge, that state that he left the Church of Norway, converted to Roman Catholicism etc. Standard practice is to give the religion and the denomination, see Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, I suggest to write "Religion: Christian (Lutheran)".  Cs32en Talk to me  18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe in Norway, you are a member of the state church by default since birth, so it doesn't need to mean much in practice. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet there are indications that it actually meant something in practice for Breivik, and sources are supporting that interpretation.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored it to Church of Norway (Lutheran). Let's see how long it stays. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can someone have a look at this series of edits? I don't want to undo edits that have altered my own edits to the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's by a hypocritical Christian who has no problem with labelling people "Muslim terrorist" but can't handle it when it says "Christian terrorist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableCoaster (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. This was a request for technical help rather than for a discussion.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I disagree with the use of the term islamopbobia because it is biased. It suggests that if your fear Islam you have a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. So basically it says islamophobes and critics of islam have a mental disorder. Pass a Method talk 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)