Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

Terminology

"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)

Some sources

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\07\28\story_28-7-2011_pg3_3

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-rise-and-fall-of-geert-wilders8217-ideology-2011-07-27

http://www.news.az/articles/society/41354

http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-07/anders-breivik-christian-terrorist

Does not call him one but refers to the accusation.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Unnameable-terror/Article1-725092.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/anders-breivik-christian-terrorist_n_910379.html

So in fact there are sources for this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorist: http://news.yahoo.com/christian-terrorist-norway-case-strikes-debate-181559379.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.228.180 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

American paleoconservative pundit Steve Sailer, after stating that he had "read far more of his prose than I care to", had the following to say about the characterization of Breivik as "Christian":

For self-interested reasons, American liberals have clung to an initial description by a harried Norwegian policeman of Breivik as a “Christian fundamentalist.” In reality, Breivik used “Christian” as an American might use “Judeo-Christian”—as a cultural identity moniker in the armed conflict he wanted to launch against Muslims and, more importantly to him, elite whites. The most notable traits of Breivik’s character are a Nietzschean lack of Christian compassion and guilt, grandiose ambition, self-confidence, competitiveness, cynicism, and a lack of normal human emotions...” (emphasis added)

— Dale Arnett (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet the title of the article is not "Paleoconservative assessements of Breivik's mindset". Breivik's reference to the Knights Templar, and his intention to attend a Christian church service just before starting the attack clearly indicate that Breivik considers himself to be part of the institutionalized Christendom. If Christians would have been caring and loving people in all known history, then we would never have an article on the Spanish inquisition. Reliable sources, especially news sources, also clearly describe him as a Christian.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:27, 1 August 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)

"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)

Agreed, we say he is a terrorist and what he is fighting for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree using the term Norwegian right-wing terrorist no more implies that right-wing all Noewegians are terrorists than calling Andre Ward an American Boxer implies that all Americans are boxers.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that it has since been changed to extremest. There seems to be an agreement here to terrorist (unless I missed another section that said otherwise) so it should likely be reinstaited.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a longtime defender of not using the term terrorism or terrorist at all in wikipedia. Period. If we banned the term, 90% of the contention in a shitload of articles would go up in smoke and we could write articles from which the reader draws their own conclusion. However, a number of muslim extremists are named "terrorists" in their BLP, so I do not see a systemic objection to this, as there was a number of years ago. So edit war away... --Cerejota (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be using the term terrorist on wikipedia. Period.--Ønography (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There are people who say if we wouldn't have naked or nasty medical pictures all the arguments would go away. And so on. But Wikipedia breeds arguments - they find whatever issue they might. We should just stick with the sources. If you have a source that says he's not a terrorist by all means cite and explain what it says. Wnt (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion of Anders Behring Breivik

(A) Should we include the religion of Anders Behring Breivik in the infobox?

(B) Should we, in view of what reliable sources report, give the religion as Christian, cultural Christian, Church of Norway, or some other name?

  Cs32en Talk to me  23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in the infobox

Yes, we should include the religion in the infobox.

• Include - Wikipedia's standard (in other articles) for determining a person's religion pretty much comes down to "what do they say they are?" As I said in the edit summaries, if we're going to call Osama bin Laden a Muslim, we have to call this guy a Christian. Going against WP:NPOV and deciding who is or is not a true believer opens the door to extremists deciding that the Pope John Paul II or Martin Luther King, Jr. "aren't Christian" because one is Catholic and the other was a socialist. Breiviks's actions, though more representative of the devil than God, were done to try and advance his idea of a "Christian culture." He goes on at length about how important a "Christian culture" is, and he states that he considers himself "%100 Christian." Wrong as he was, those are his claims. I would consider "Cultural Christian" an acceptable compromise, though, since he does say that he doesn't have a relationship with God. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• We would gravely fail our readers if we did not mention his religion in the infobox. That many Christians (everywhere on the political spectrum) are now racing to distance themselves from him is understandable, and the controversy is a product of the fear and heated emotions related to the frenzy to avoid any hint of guilt by association. But that it is a difficult and politically charged question does not excuse us from the editorial obligation to inform our readers that Breivik professed adherence to the Christian religion. causa sui (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support We should include the religion in the infobox here, as we do in other cases, including Bin Laden.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include (Here via Feedback Request Service.) The relevant policy appears to be Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates and the material linked from there. Religious identification in an infobox is relevant here despite the fact that this isn't a "category" question per se as per the last paragraph of that section. The linked guideline [[1]] has several points to evaluate here, clearly id needs to be based on reliable sources and (as per #Religion) there, self-identification. What I've seen of sources suggests those bars are met. The question of Breivik's faith is relevant as it is, as near as I can tell, the subject (by itself) of coverage in reliable sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include -- The religion a person identifies with should be included in the infobox, and without side remarks (such as "self-identified but disputed") adjacent to it. If there happens to be somebody else (or a number of others) who disagrees with the subject's self-identification (i.e. "he not a 'true' xyz...") then that should go into the article (not the infobox) if it is noteworthy. For instance, there are many people -- particularly moderate Muslims -- who would dispute whether Osama bin Laden is a "true" Muslim given all of the violence that he perpetrated. But his infobox does not mention that -- instead, it simply says what sect of Islam he identifies with. --Shadowlink1014 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include Religious identification is wholly relevant, significant to the article and not contentious at all. An overwhelming amount of reliable sources describe him as Christian, as does Breivik himself in his own words. This is really just common sense. Most people would agree that Muslim terrorists aren't "true Muslims" (in that they follow an extreme and twisted form of the religion), yet we don't hesitate to call their religion 'Islam' in infoboxes. So I'm really scratching my head as to why people are stirring up conflict about calling someone who is a Christian "a Christian". I also understand that Christians are trying to distance the religion from this man, but it would indeed be a gross failure of Wikipedia, and a blatant intrusion of systematic bias, to suppress this information. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - Given that so many reliable source make reference to his religion when discussing the topic, it would be doing a disservice to our readers to exclude it. Subject himself makes frequent religious reference in association with the events for which he is known, as do reliable sources. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - in addition to the other reasons above, the killer identifies with the Knights of the Christian Crusades. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 2011-08-01T20:28:01 (UTC)

• Include per all of the above comments. The long-held standard of including the religion the subject self-identifies with, as verified by reliable sources, certainly applies here.--JayJasper (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include At then end of the day he has called himself a Chrisitan, And it is not for anyone to say he is wrong (Its not like thre is an authoritive chrisitan source).Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - WP cannot show bias by including religion in the InfoBox of every single Muslim-affiliated terrorist, yet omit it from a Christian-affiliated terrorist. That would be the worst kind of bias, and would undermine WP's credibility. I do agree with AndyTheGrump below that, overall, religion should be omitted from all InfoBoxes (except perhaps religious leaders) because the nuance/context of the belief cannot be adequately explained in an InfoBox. However, until that "no religion" policy is adopted WP-wide, we cannot put religion in Muslim article InfoBoxes, and omit from Christian InfoBoxes. --Noleander (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include as it seems to be the current standard practice (Osama bin Laden, Ali Hassan al-Majid, Ayman al-Zawahiri...). Systemic bias must be resisted. Prolog (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - Seems relevant to his notability. His used his faith partly as justification for notable actions, no? NickCT (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Include. Would we seriously be having this conversation if he were Muslim? Absolutely not. He identified as a Christian and did what he did in the name of Christianity. The scramble to disown him does not suddenly change the policy on self-identification to which we have always adhered. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - I have now 3 times had to edit this article, re The weapon in the photograph, is a fully customised Colt AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine manafactured exclusivly by Colt LLC, it is made for and used by the US special forces only. To simple say it is a gun or a standard issue AR-15 is wrong. The fact that this has happened 3 times now, for no good reason? 'Whose interest does it serve' MarcusLeDain (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we should not include the religion in the infobox.

• Exclude At the moment there is no way to settle this issue by using reliable sources. It will remain contentions for some time. If I had to stake a claim on the truth I'd say that he's culturally religious essentially in the way that most Scandinavians are but as an extremist. He has taken a normal religious cultural identity and shaped it into his own version of extremist European nationalism. I think this is a very meaningful part of who he is and what he did, but until the dust settles and some actual scholarship is done on this person and on these events what I think is true will not have the force of a majority of reliable sources behind it. So for now this is simply a minefield.Griswaldo (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude. I have previously argued that having often-contentious fields like 'religion' or 'ethnicity' in infoboxes is wrong in principle - such topics (where relevant) are much better described in the body of the text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - I largely agree re "having often-contentious fields like 'religion' or 'ethnicity' in infoboxes is wrong in principle" - however, I think our policies on this issue recognize "self-identification" as being an important standard for categorization. I think that standard is met here. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude. His Christianity is a subject of dispute and inclusion in the infobox seems to be an example of POV pushing. You'll note that Mohammed Atta, who, unlike Breivik, actually attended a place of worship does not have his religion in his infobox. Mamalujo (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Mamalujo, just added Atta's religion.

--Javaweb (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Exclude religion from such infoboxes in principle, and begin to do so by excluding it in this infobox

• [insert your comment here]

Exclude religion from such infoboxes in principle, but include religion in this infobox until a general consensus is reached with regard to such infoboxes

• [insert your comment here]

Description

Christian

• There is no encyclopedic reason, in abstraction from the political shouting matches, for us to descend into euphemisms. Breivik has provided us with an avalanche of evidence that he is an adherent of Christianity. causa sui (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per reliable sources, Breivik is a member of the Church of Norway, and intended to attend a church service prior to his attacks. As we generally refer to the religion, not the church, adding Christian to the infobox would follow the established standard that we are applying in other such cases as well.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have already stated that I consider fields like 'religion' in infoboxes to be unnecessary. However, if people insist on having them, we have no choice but to follow what the overwhelming majority of sources say - that Breivik is a Christian. Note however that per WP:BLPCAT, this needs to be self-asserted, and Breivik is not entirely consistent on this. In any case 'cultural Christian' (the only other remotely-viable alternative) isn't a religion at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support this isn't really a question. The religion is Christianity. That's it. The 'Church of Norway' is the church or denomination. 'Cultural Christian' flat out isn't a religion, it's a personal philosophy that exists within the scope of Christianity. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - He is clearly identified as a christian in reliable sources and we should not be overly specific to protect overly-sensitive Christians. "Christian" is the most accurate, in concurrence with above statement by Swarm. To be clear I support the Infobox entry as, Christianity. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons as others --Javaweb (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• Support per above comments and reliable sources, refer to the religion in the inbox rather than the church or denomination. The latter can be discussed in the text of the article, if need be.--JayJasper (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support He has said he is a chrisitan, and all the concentration on 'Cultural Christian' (his words, so he is no more reliable for this then his claim to be a christian) is an attmept to distance him from mainstream religion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - InfoBoxes are not the place for nuance and subtlety. The reader can go to the body of the article (or footnotes next to the InfoBox word "Christian") to get more details. --Noleander (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per sources. The array of religion-related beliefs and stances should be documented elsewhere. Prolog (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Seems clear and to the point. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The following additional choices were added on August 4, 2011:

(a) In addition to describing Breivik as a Christian in the infobox, we should also indicate the denomination, i.e. Lutheran, in the infobox.

• Support We should indicate the denomination, as we do, for example, in the infobox for Osama Bin Laden.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Though it should say Church of Norway, not Lutheranism. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per standard and precedent. Per Swarm, specify Church of Norway.--JayJasper (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

[Please add your comment here.]

• Support as per above comments. Other articles do it and its not excessive detail. Also reduces chances of "how dare they say he's one of us"-style disputes. I'll abstain from declaring what denomination should be used. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) When describing Breivik as a Christian in the infobox, we should not indicate the denomination, i.e. Lutheran, in the infobox.

[Please add your comment here.]

(c) Other suggestions to be implemented in connection with describing Breivik as a Christian in the infobox.

[Please add your comment here.]

---

Cultural Christian

• Comment There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about this concept. While I'm not entirely convinced about this particular combination, there is a literature in the sociology of religion on "cultural religion" and it has been specifically applied to the type of Christianity most commonly practiced in Scandinavia. For two references see my comment here. I'm not arguing for the application of this label at this time, but merely pointing out that there is more to it than a "personal philosophy" or the notion that it is "not a religion." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd not seen that. It is problematic in this context though - as you say, 'cultural religion' and cultural Christian' aren't quite the same thing. Of course 'not a religion' is an oversimplification, but it is an oversimplification that results from the very idea that (a) everyone must either have 'a religion', or alternately, explicitly reject one, and (b) that there are discreet 'religions' in the first place, beyond the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of individuals. Both ideas are implicit in most orthodox Judeo-Christian-Islamic theologies, but are by no means self-evident. Not that any of this gets us any nearer to deciding what was going on inside Breivik's head. As I've suggested, perhaps the solution is for Wikipedia to try to avoid such things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think we should say anything emphatic about his religion, in an infobox or in the article without multiple high quality sources that 1) identify said religion and 2) clearly show how it is meaningful to his notability.Griswaldo (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

According to his manifesto, he identifies himself as a cultural christian, I think it would be a safe bet to put that as his current religion, until higher quality news sources or indeed his own court testimony can be found otherwise. {User talk:elcor101|talk]] 13:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcor101 (talk • contribs)

No, we can't do that. He says many things in that document. It's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need to use secondary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Church of Norway

• [insert your comment here]

Other

"Self defined"

The Church of Anders Behring Breivik

Maybe his religion is best discribed as 'self defined' as he does not fit any denomination, he may well be the founder of The Church of Anders Behring Breivik, its one and only member. If he gets followers his church could become a recognised religion.

Issues explored in Daily Show, Global Edition, with Jon Stewart.--Hemshaw (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does he fit?

A schematic of Christian denominational taxonomy. The different width of the lines (thickest for "Protestantism" and thinnest for "Oriental Orthodox" and "Nestorians") is without objective significance. Protestantism in general, and not just Restorationism, claims a direct connection with Early Christianity.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemshaw (talk • contribs)

Where does Martin Luther fit in there before the Protestant Reformation? And where are the reliable sources discussing this Church of Anders Breivik? While I trust Jon Stewart more than the "serious" news programs, if we want to pretend Breivik didn't think of himself as Christian, we're hypocrites for pretending the Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim. Jon Stewart made that point as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

"Anders Behring Breivik placed himself potentially outside of religious Christianity in a 1,500 page manifesto he has reportedly admitted to writing. He wrote: "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie." IBtimes reported, Breivik was quotes as stating "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment," </ref>Anders Breivik Manifesto: Shooter/Bomber Downplayed Religion, Secular Influence Key, July 25, 2011</ref>

Secular?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/186020/20110725/anders-breivik-manifesto-shooter-bomber-downplayed-religion-secular-influence-key.htm

--Hemshaw (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"This makes us Christian".Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"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," he wrote.

Breivik's initial explanation comes in a segment of the manifesto entitled "Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom - reforming our suicidal church."

Later in the manifesto, when attempting to justify his "martyrdom operation" Breivik did not see himself as being religious.

"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment," he wrote in a section of the manifesto.

Comment: I think we are trying to see sense from something that has none. --Hemshaw (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

On that I agree. But Breivik has stated he is a Christian, does he at any point actualy say he is not a christian? Many people are not very religious, but it does not mean thyat they are not Christian (just not active).Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt he's hard to understand, he contradicts himself. He has not stated he is 'not a muslim' he makes no claim to being religious, there is more assumption regarding his religion than fact. Reading more I cannot see any reason for a paragraph on his religion. Christian, in his info box? I cannot see the point. The article is also rather long now, encyclopedic? --Hemshaw (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But he does not say he is a Muslim, he says he is a Christian. So he does not have to deny something he has not said for us to not include it. But we do need him to dent something he had claimed for us not to include it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear from this quote that he's talking about himself. The quoted passage could mean that he's acknowledging that many Europeans are not Christians and saying that those secular people should not be excluded from the Eurocentric identity, so long as they support values that (he thinks) are inspired by Christianity. "We" means "we Europeans" not "We atheists". causa sui (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

oxymoron - a non religious christian--Hemshaw (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

for clarity: a contradiction in terms--Hemshaw (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As such he is either Christian, just not a very good one. Or he is not, inh which case whhy claik you are?Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

While on this case I don't give a (what the link says), we *have* to include religion among his self-justifications. Its not the infobox that is important, is the what the RS are universal in saying, that his attack was motivated by a belief in Christian supremacy over Islam.--Cerejota (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Responses from those mentioned:section

I have removed this undue section, it doesn't belong here. This article is about the life of this mass murderer - his primary writings and comments people have made in response to him mentioning them do not belong here. The comments about press questions about the fact that the mass murderer mentioned them do not belong in this persons Biography - its tangential coat-racking and undue association in the BLP of a mass murderer - keep it focused - this article is about his life story - if there is an article about his manifesto there may be a case to add such detail there. Personally I think its time to fork it out. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertions:

1. The only AfD on the manifesto closed as a redirect, it is clear a consensus that discussion of the manifesto belongs here.
2. BLP protections on publications do not apply to the author's own work, and his mention of other notable people is certainly to be included here. Not including that information in the other people's article is to be decided there, not here. We cannot use BLP to mean we must protect someone from their own works, or what others are saying based on his own works. For example, we do not keep bad reviews of a movie director's work out of their BLPs simply to protect them, or keep from mentioning some other director that this director list as an influence in order to protect the other director - criticism of a movie director's work is central to his or her biography, as are his or her influences, just as the motivations, influences and reasoning for a mass murderer are central to his or her biography.
3. This article, or any other BLP, are not just about their "life story" but also about what made them notable, and what is made notable by this notability. Breivik would have been unknow if it weren't for the attacks he performed, and the subsequent attention RS have given to him as a person. Critical in this assesment is the focus RS give to his motivations, influences, and ideology. Not mentioning he was influenced by Fjordman is like not writing that Osama bin Laden was a muslim. Its an omission of critical information about the subject, in an article about the subject.
4. There is not enough RS material that can be divorced from personal notability to have a stand-alone article on the Manifesto itself. There might be, and we can do a WP:SUMMARY if that time comes.

--Cerejota (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That section was rather verbose,[2] but we should preserve the sources and make at least an aggregate statement that the sources he cited universally denounced the attack and distanced themselves from Breivik. Off2riorob, because you're one of the biggest supporters of BLP policy, I'm very surprised that you would completely remove mention of efforts by individuals named here to distance themselves from such an act as this. Wnt (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

While I understand what Off2riorob is doing, I have to say that Wnt has a point. As it stands, the article is already a coatrack for Breivik's radical ideology, and it's unlikely that we'll be able to avoid that. We can't give them equal time but we probably ought to give them some time. causa sui (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The anti-Islamic writers he quoted are saying the same thing: they were not advocating his actions. Can't we just say that once and have a major paper prove they said that? Any sociopath can attach to any viewpoint to justify his actions. Lee Harvey Oswald thought Castro's Cuba was being treated unfairly. We don't blame pro-Castro folks for influencing him. Unless the writers were advocating his actions, guilt by association is not fair. This article should not be a coat-rack to argue European immigration. The killer is known for a mass killing. He was not well-known outside of that "achievement". --Javaweb (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

But we also need to know wjat he claikjs are his reason for doing that. So we need to know what he claims to be influenced by. And for balance we need their rejection of his actions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We can list who he quoted and, since they are all adamant that they did not advocate what he did, a short statement to that affect, with a link to their replies. --Javaweb (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I believe we should by now be working on 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence. These responses would well fit into that article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to restore that article. Many of the media sources were about the manifesto rather than the author or the attacks, and it would allow more verbose descriptions such as the section that was deleted here. But I still think that as a matter of BLP, if we're going to mention names of people in this article, they deserve a clarification that they were not supporting this attack. Wnt (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? We are not asserting they supported him in any way, are we? so there needs no rebuttal..at least not in this mass murderers BLP. .."and the, reportedly insane, mass murderer said he agreed with jonh and harry..and mary. - the focus here is about the subject of the article. I did remove the section and created a redlink to a manifesto article, The Manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik with a "nudge" to fork it out to such an article, as per Petri Krohn's title also - 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence - It will be a much better place to deal with all the coatracking guilt by association stuff and a lot less people will read it there, making it correspondingly less violating anyways. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry

There is a big paragraph on freemasonry whih i think gives undue weight by it being so long. here Thoughts? Pass a Method talk 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the section undue and needs a trim.[ I don't think it needs a section of its own. Looking at a couple of the citations this knights templer association is the rantings of a reportedly insane mass murderer and some over egging of the details in the citations. [User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture

pls delete the heroic picture made by himself (near manifesto).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.18.188.85 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dont be a baby. It is how he looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.188.73 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WHAT? the first picture he published in his facebook is forbidden but this one is not?? You guys never cease amazing me. --201.164.145.114 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In the killer's document, he said he made the pictures to promote himself. Those pictures are not from a neutral point of view, they are from the killer's. --Javaweb (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

This is ridiculousness. Do you think those photos of congressmen in front of the US flag are not made to promote themselves? What do you mean those pictures are not from a neutral point of view? In any case, removing the picture takes away from the quality of the article. 98.20.142.3 (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this photo cant replaced the old one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwpkommunikacio/6032020769/ It says its CC BY 2.0 so it should be okey to use.81.170.228.65 (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Breivik's antisemitism

from the Guardian: " And, last but not least, Breivik is antisemitic but pro-Israel, as the state of Israel is the first line of defence against the Muslim expansion – he even wants to see the Jerusalem temple rebuilt. His view is that Jews are OK as long as there aren't too many of them – or, as he wrote in his manifesto: "There is no Jewish problem in western Europe (with the exception of the UK and France) as we only have 1 million in western Europe, whereas 800,000 out of these 1 million live in France and the UK. The US, on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem." He realises the ultimate paradox of a Zionist Nazi – how is this possible? " http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/anders-behring-breivik-pim-fortuyn?commentpage=5#start-of-comments

I think that his view regard Jews should be included.ProgramAngel (talk)

Sure. Why not. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece, written by Slavoj Žižek, and not a piece of reportage. There must be a better source for this. Also, people ought to read the entire piece before suggesting addition here or anywhere else. This quote is early on in the piece, and Zizek's final destination is actually a harsh critique of Zionism. From the second to last paragraph:

• "There is only one solution to this enigma: it is not that the US fundamentalists have changed, it is that Zionism itself has paradoxically come to adopt some antisemitic logic in its hatred of Jews who do not fully identify with the politics of the state of Israel. Their target, the figure of the Jew who doubts the Zionist project, is constructed in the same way as the European antisemites constructed the figures of the Jew – he is dangerous because he lives among us, but is not really one of us."

If you're confused about how he gets from A to B, then you shouldn't be surprised, because clarity is not one of Zizek's strong suits. My point though, is that it is not helpful to cherry pick quotes to serve a political agenda, which is what all kinds of groups are doing surrounding this unfortunate event. Let's try not to do that ourselves.Griswaldo (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

even if this is only opinion the quote are defiantly anti semitic and in any context. saying that there is Jew problem in the US but not in Europe because the different number show that he does have problem with Jewish influence.I would say that his attitude is more or less anti semitic.ProgramAngel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Some Nazis sympathized with Zionism, as that ideology implied that Jewish people would leave Europe for the Middle East. Breivik appears to see Zionists primarily as an ally against Islam. His criticism of Hitler is often along the lines of "He had good intentions, but was blinded by emotions and chose the wrong means." I would prefer to add any content related to this area based on multiple reliable sources (preferably scholarly sources), rather than based on commentary in newspapers.  Cs32en Talk to me  07:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Manifesto in external links, removed

I have removed the link to the manifesto, because it is absolutely known to contain copyright violations.

Our policy on this is absolutely clear and unambiguous; WP:ELNEVER

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

Within the article, we made it quite clear - with reliable sources - that portions of the works are known copyright violations;[3]

The introductory chapter of the manifesto defining "Cultural Marxism" is a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation. Major parts of the compendium are attributed to the pseudonymous Norwegian blogger Fjordman. The text also copies sections of the Unabomber manifesto, without giving credit, while exchanging the words "leftists" for "cultural Marxists" and "black people" for "muslims".

For this reason, I have removed the link [4].  Chzz  ►  10:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources say lagerised ot copied, they do not say it violates anyones coptright. That is Synthatsis, I sugest you find a source that says it a copyrioght violation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, Slater we don't wait for secondary sources to say that something is a copyright infringement before we act. Where do you get that idea? The aim is to no contribute to a copyright violation, and we do so whether or not someone else has published the claim that it is a copyright violation.Griswaldo (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

s:Industrial Society and Its Future is public domain, and was recognized as such by Wikisource. Recently an absurd claim was made against it that the Unabomber retroactively the right to put anything he wrote in the public domain on account of civil liability; if we believe this our legal duty is to nuke and pave Wikipedia period, but I don't.

"“Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology - "Free Congress has given permission to website visitors to print this book for themselves, and to make copies of it for others, without charge." [5]

Fjordman's book "Defeating Eurabia" appears to be copyrighted (at the spam-blacklisted site www.lulu.com/product/paperback/defeating-eurabia/3892473) yet I found another site calling it public domain. [6] Also I don't know the copied text is from the book. Many of Fjordman's writings are available on a web site but I didn't see a statement about the license. [7] I have a feeling there is a release somewhere, but it would be good to do further research. There is no explicit evidence of a copyright violation given here - for example, no matter how vigorously Fjordman denounced Breivik, I see no mention of him filing suit to prevent the 2083 document from using his text.

Given that all but possibly one part is public domain, I think this argument fails. The status of Fjordman's works should be sorted out, but I don't see any clear evidence of WP:EL trouble. It is not the duty of editors to figure out the copyright status of every reference and external link before adding them; it is only their duty not to link to what they know is a copyright violation. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A lawsuit does not have to be filed by Peder Jensen (aka Fjordman) for it to be a copyright violation. That is a specious argument. When it is reasonable to assume a copyright infringement (due to clear copy paste without attribution) the correct procedure is to be cautious until there is evidence that there isn't one. It is also my understanding that in the United States, as well as all the member nations of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works "copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder, or rightsholder, is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights." (from Copyright). This means we pretty much assume that everything attributable to a recent source is copyrighted unless we have proof that it isn't.Griswaldo (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But no copyright has been enforced by the copyright holder.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So what?Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well as the blog user has not enforced his or her exclusive rights its in the public domaiin.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I was unaware that 1) an individual had to sue for copyright infringement within the first month of becoming aware of it or else lose his rights and 2) that should this individual chose to enforce his rights s/he has to shout it loudly from a top a mountain. Then again I was unaware of these things because they aren't even remotely true. Please stop pulling arguments out of thing air.Griswaldo (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim that is so. What's important to me is that we do not have to track down and argue an amateur court case about every copyright license for every EL and ref we put into an article! We just can't do it! We have absolutely no way to know whether the average website has permission to put up the information it has or not - any website, any issue. The "ELNEVER" stuff should only be invoked when you're dealing with a pretty notorious pirate site, when it's clear that the information is being shuffled around as one site and another is shut down, or when common sense tells you that there's no way in hell Universal Pictures licensed their film for Teeny_Bopper to put on his Myspace page. Here we have every reason to think that Fjordman probably wanted these postings to be available, and we certainly are not linking to anything we know is a violation. Wnt (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing copyright infringement with copyright enforcement. Our policies are meant so as we don't abet infringement. If you were a regular at the RS/N you'd see that it is standard practice to consider any source the infringes on copyright, whether the owner of the copyright has chosen to pursue his/her rights or not, as de facto unusable. When people copy another source word for word without attribution and without any known license to do so, we consider it a copyright infringement until proven otherwise. When such an issue is brought to light we certainly don't use WP:OTHERSTUFF as an excuse not to do the right thing. I'm done with this now.Griswaldo (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that only Fjordman's postings are at issue now? Wnt (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. When I skimmed the manifesto I found many other disturbing sources plagiarized in it, from white supremacy websites to Islamophobic rantings of the anti-jihad crowd. Just because new outlets have not mentioned all the plagiarism in the manifesto doesn't mean it isn't there and doesn't mean it isn't our responsibility not to link to it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Anders Breivik plagiarism" and then tell me that only Fjordman is the issue here. You might find things like this for starters.Griswaldo (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet, that source, a professional publisher, had no problem with linking directly to a copy of the manifesto. It's not our job to figure out whether 2000 words is Fair Use or not. Wnt (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. If there are any doubts it is absolutely your job to allay those doubts with proof. Like I said, it is more than reasonable to see this as a copyright infringement, indeed multiple infringements. Given that fact you need to prove otherwise. The absence of any current litigation does not prove anything, especially since the manifesto hasn't been out but a month. Anyone who wants to read it will find it by googling. They don't need our help, so at this time we don't take risks. What about that do you not understand?Griswaldo (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of other web-sites choose to link to copyvio's. We don't.  Chzz  ►  12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor question about wikilinking alternate names in infobox

While "Sigurd Jorsalfar" (Sigurd I of Norway) is wikilinked in the text where it's given context, should it also be wikilinked in the infobox? Would that be too confusing, suggesting that Sigurd I has something to do with this guy, or would it instead help readers looking at the infobox to find out that the name is a reference to a historic figure rather than just a name (like "Andrew Berwick" is)? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)