Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

"Trigger-points"

During interrogation, Breivik has explained what he sees as the "trigger-points" in his youth for becoming hostile to Muslims. He has explained several clashes with immigrant youth of Pakistani and African backgrounds when he was around 15-17 years old, including being beaten up and robbed on several occasions (once broke his nose).[1] (Google translate) I think this should be included in the article. —Filippusson (t.) 12:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

yeah? the guy has been caught lying several times. his "clashes" with the so-called "immigrant" youth are not verifiable [2]. breivik is clearly not a reliable source. even gang members term him a lying "low life" [3]. -- mustihussain (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't said that it necessarily is true, but it is nevertheless relevant for the article. At least according to himself, this is the background for how he shaped his political views. —Filippusson (t.) 12:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a single brief mention in Dagbladet of Breivik's claims justifies inclusion. No doubt all sorts of things will be said in his defence, and we don't need to list them all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Explaining his reasoning is not a defense, what he did was reprehensible no matter the motive. 174.113.134.157 (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Category:Christian terrorism

I have removed this because it's an uber-category to Category:2011 Norway attacks. We don't put every country on Earth into Category:Earth (or Category:Universe for that matter). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It is hardly self-evident that '2011 Norway attacks' is in the 'Christian terrorism' category though, is it? Surely the point of categories is to help readers find related material - and they shouldn't have to hunt it down in less-than-obvious places. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

what are you trying to impart?-- mustihussain (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So what's the category for then? Adding another line at the end of the article? If it's so useless, why was it created? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Which category? And why do you think it is useless? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are saying that Category:2011 Norway attacks is difficult to find, not obvious, and hardly self-evident. By that logic, you need to add Category:Terrorism in Norway, Category:Terrorist incidents in 2011, Category:Massacres in Norway, Category:Deaths by firearm in Norway, and Category:Mass murder in 2011 to this article — all of which are uber-categories. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything of the sort. Both topics clearly relate to the article - and we shouldn't assume that readers understand the finer points of Wikipedia categories. They are aids to navigation, and should be used as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly makes "Christian terrorism" so special that it needs to be included twice (and my removing it with explanatory edit-summary is labeled as "blatant vandalism")? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'Christian terrorism' category was included only once. In may very well also be included in the '2011 Norway attacks' category, but as I have already explained, we can't expect readers to know that. Unless you can give a valid reason as to why having the 'Christian terrorism' link in the article is a disadvantage to readers (as opposed to being something you just don't like), it should stay. This is common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. The killer says he modeled himself after the terrorist Bin Laden. --Javaweb (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Javaweb, you completely missed the point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If anything the attacks are logically a subtopic of their sole perpetrator. I don't get this. Also the use of "uber" in this context is strange and confusing. It would be a good contrast (if spelled correctly) for unter but I think we would be better off in English saying "super" and "sub" if it would please you. Obotlig (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing suggests that Breivik's religion played any significant part in his actions, neither in motivation nor in carrying out the attacks. -- Heptor _talk 23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not consider his desire to create a Christian Europe to have anything to do with Christianity? (But at any rate, this is beside the point - it's not up to us to decide whether he was motivated by Christianity, we go by secondary sources which say so.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a statement that Breivik wanted to create Christian Europe in the leade of this article, citing four secondary sources. However I couldn't find this statement made in any of those sources. Closest i could find was that he listed "Christian" under his religion on his Facebook pofile[4]. Have I overlooked something or is there a mistake in the article? At least I can't remember this statement made anywhere else. -- Heptor _talk 10:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the statement as a pre-caution, before some lazy journalist picks it up and puts it in a secondary source. I have no prejudice against putting it back if sources are found. -- Heptor _talk 10:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail writes that "[Police investigator] said the suspect posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies. He did not describe the websites in any more details." This alone can not justify writing that he is a "Christian Fundamentalist". -- Heptor _talk 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't in the currently cited sources, so thanks for pointing that out, but it can be restored with, say, this source ("I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That source says that Breivik once tried to explain his view in a prayer. It does not follow by itself that he was a Christian Fundamentalist. -- Heptor _talk 11:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We didn't write that he was a fundamentalist, so that's okay. (Only that he was initially called a fundamentalist in the media.) I now have absolutely no idea what part or parts of this article you object to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's true, I think I misunderstood that sentence was a bit. In any case, there is a difference between "European Christendom" and "Christian Europe". I think the latter kind of has fundamentalist tones in it, which are not present in the source. I edited the sentence to better reflect the source, I hope it is OK now. -- Heptor _talk 19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

PeRshGo, why did you put "Christian Europe" back in? No such concept appears in the source. -- Heptor _talk 22:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your current edit is the most accurate. PeRshGo (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the sentence as is stands - "It regards Islam and "cultural Marxism" as the enemy, and argues for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism, to preserve European Christendom." - is not very accurate either. This formulation makes it look like "to preserve European Christendom" was the ultimate goal in this "manifesto". There is no basis in the sources for claiming that. The only reference is to Brevik's claim that he once prayed to God and, in the prayer, claimed that what he was doing was essential to preserve Christian Europe. It does not by itself mean that preservation of Christian Europe was his ultimate goal.

I have to say that I am really uncomfortable with debating the finer points in the reasoning of this mass murderer, at least this soon after the tragedy. So I am rescinding myself from editing this part of the article, on NPOV grounds if nothing else. -- Heptor _talk 14:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Image of Skøyen

While I appreciate the effort to locate relevant images, I am unsure if File:Sondre Skoyen park.JPG really is a good illustration of the area where Breivik was raised. The image shows a luxurious mansion in a park, and it might lead readers into thinking that Breivik's home looked like that. His actual residence was an apartment in a fairly unremarkable low-rise block (see for an image). Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the image may be appropriate. Perhaps someone could ask on the wikimedia commons or Norwegian wikipedia if anyone would be willing to take a picture for us, if it is worth the trouble. Understanding the origins of a person like this does seem worthwhile. Obotlig (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect category Norwegian anti-communists

The category Norwegian anti-communists is nonsense. He used, oddly, "cultural marxism"/"marxism" as a synonym for "multiculturalism" and those he blamed for the multicultural society. So in his view, the Conservative Party of Norway (or anyone who didn't hold his own irrational Islamophobic far-right Zionist views) was "marxist". There is no evidence he held what is generally agreed upon to constitute anti-communist views (i.e. opposition to the totalitarian ideology known as communism). JoshSan (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And your evidence that it is "generally agreed" that communism is a "totalitarian ideology" can be found where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really interested in revisionism. Apart from that, your question is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed (which is whether he was opposed to communism, or whether he used "marxism" when actually referring to conservatives, social democrats and liberals). JoshSan (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so where is the source for that? You state what you assert are 'his views', without saying where they are from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's you, not me, who's inserting material in the article, so it's you who need to come up with your source. JoshSan (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we'll leave the 'anti-communist' category out, while we wait for response from others. Now give me a source to justify your insertion of 'Zionist terrorism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

His Zionism is discussed and sourced in the article and even mentioned in the lead. I see no reason to include Christian terrorism while excluding Zionist terrorism. They are equally relevant. JoshSan (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• His support for Zionism and simultaneous engagement in terrorism does not make him classifiable with the category "Zionist terrorism" which is for terrorism motivated by zionism - Just like he is not classifiable with Serbian nationalist terrorism - even though he also supported serbian nationalism. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a difference between Zionism and Serbian nationalism. It never says he is an "Israeli nationalist", a Zionist is not bound by borders or nations or cultures - you have Christian zionists in many countries. To label Breivik a Serbian nationalist is ridiculous to begin with, since he is not a Serbian - he only has sympathies for Serbian nationalists for their opposition to (Bosnian) muslims, the same way he also has sympathies for Hindu nationalists for mostly the same reason. Breivik, I'd say, is a simple man with a simple wordview: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and his primary enemy is Islam. So yes, he is a Zionist, and yes he sympathies with several nationalists movements across the glove. And yes, this is notable, and backed my many sources. But it's already in the lead and explained further down the article, so I personally don't see the need to also add him in those categories. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Then I assume his supposed support for Christianity and simultaneous engagement in terrorism does not make him classifiable with the category "Christian terrorism" which is for terrorism motivated by Christianity (he was motivated by Islamophobia as we all know, and as is extremely well sourced). Or is this a clear case of double standards? He was just as much a Zionist (terrorist) as he was Christian/a Christian terrorist. JoshSan (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

His Zionism can also be explained by his Christianity. Many Christians, mainly protestants, are very pro-Israel and identify very much with Zionism. Zionism is not a faith, though, unlike Christianity, or Islam. It's a political movement influenced by faith and ethnicity, but it is not a religion by itself. If you want to add him in this category, I am fine with it. But I think the Christian terrorist category alone is sufficient enough. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In Norway, the majority of Christians are certainly not very pro-Israel. In fact, the Israel lobby (which is a fringe group in Norway) accuses the Church of Norway of being very anti-Israel. Being pro-Israel/Zionist and being Christian are completely separate things. JoshSan (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I never was against including him the Zionist terrorism category in the first place. I just didn't think it was needed, but you've convinced me. Since this part of his ideology is well-referenced and sourced, I think we have plenty of reasonable arguments to place back the category. You have my support, for whatever that's worth. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are there any sources that explicitly mentions any relation to "zionist terrorism" and not just to "zionism"? if not adding the category is of course synth.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of sources which explicitly reject the idea that he is a "Christian terrorist"[5]. The article also points out that he by "marxists" (used in quotation marks) "meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan" and that he believes marxists to "[control] almost all the political parties". JoshSan (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the 'anti-communist terrorism' category, apparently Breivik has described himself as a military commander the 'Norwegian anticommunist resistance movement' (Google translate from Norwegian: "Han kalte seg også militær kommandør i det han kaller den norske antikommunistiske motstandsbevegelse". Article here: [6]) That seems sufficient to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Breivik can describe himself as demi-god, if he wants. Would that be enough to include the article in mythology? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a nonsense argument. What, if not the fact that he calls himself an anti-communist terrorist, would be sufficient for inclusion?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He has not described himself as an anti-communist terrorist. JoshSan (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sighs. The category "Norwegian anti-communists" is by definition a category for people involved in opposition to communism. Anders Behring Breivik is involved in opposition to the ruling parties of Norway (none of which are communist) and attacked a youth camp of the (anti-communist) Social Democratic Party. There are no sources at all supporting the claim that he has been involved in any sort of opposition to the ideology described in the article titled communism. He has referred to the ruling parties of Norway (none of which are communist, on the contrary they are all anti-communist) as "communist", but if we take his words for that, that would be both a violation of neutrality and politically extreme, we would implicitly accept his claim that his opponents are communists when they are not. I've not seen any sources discussing his attitude to the various communist parties of Norway, or the ideology described in the article titled communism (i.e., communism, the real one, not the one in his fantasy world which encompasses the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, and the Social Democratic Party). He uses the words communism/marxism with a different meaning than the generally accepted meaning which is also the meaning Norwegian anti-communists is used in. Describing his use of the term "marxist" in the body of the article is fine, but the category Norwegian anti-communists (which is chiefly used for Cold War-era opponents of the Soviet Union) is irrelevant and has nothing to do with Breivik, and including it constitutes a breach of neutrality. JoshSan (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because Breivik claims something, it does not mean that we uncritically should insert categories into the article based solely on his claims. He also claims to represent a continuation of WWII-era resistance and cites Winston Churchill and Max Manus as his main idols. Should he be included in the respective categories relating to WWII-era resistance? JoshSan (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The same is done for Christian terrorism. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing; one cannot be a Christian and a terrorist. All entries in the category go by what the deranged individuals claim they were doing, not what they actually did. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a nonsense and a bigoted argument... One cannot be a Jew and a terrorist, or a Muslim and a terrorist, or a Hindu and a terrorist yet we call these people by their name too. Did Osama bin Laden ever describe himself as a "Muslim terrorist"? Nope. He prefered to be seen as a holy warrior, a freedom fighter. But what he did was commit acts of terror, so we write that he is a terrorist. Makes sense, doesn't it? Breivik may see himself as a reincarnated medieval crusader, he may see himself as the second coming of Christ for all I care, he's still a terrorist and his actions were motivated by both religious and political reasoning. You cannot deny the fact that Breivik is a terrorist simply because he is Christian and you don't want to associate Christianity with nutjobs like him. For the same reason you cannot make up bullshit claims like "he's a cultural Christian" or "he is not a real Christian". Then next thing you know, someone writes "Osama bin Laden is a cultural muslim and not a real one, since REAL believers cannot be terrorists". If we apply this logic to all cases of terrorists and mass-murderers, there would be no such thing as a religious terrorist. But we all know they excist and no sane person would ever claim that no religious terrorism excists. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that really matters in Wikipedia is what the reliable sources write on Breivik. Our own brilliant analysis is irrelevant. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Appearance in Court

FYi: "Norway Killer in First Public Court Hearing"
"The anti-Muslim extremist who confessed to a bombing and shooting massacre that killed 77 people in Norway tried to declare himself a resistance leader at his first public court hearing but was quickly cut off by the judge."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190504577037813540267528.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Zionism qualification in the lead, again

Regarding this revert: The question has been discussed in July in length, and the consensus was reached to distinguish Breivik views (qualified as far-right Zionism) from mainstream Zionism. Unless counterargument based on solid reliable sources is presented there is no reason to deviate from the established consensus. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He is a Zionist, no need to add "far-right" to the description. It's well known that Breivik is both far-right and a Zionist at the same time. He is not a moderate rightist zionist, a leftist zionist, a liberal zionist, he is just "a Zionist" as in, someone who sympathises with the Zionist cause. It's just that simple. We don't need to go into detail more in the lead. In fact, it's distracting. Because for it to be fair and square, we'd have to write he does not support "Serbian nationalism", but "far right Serbian nationalism". There is no need to distinguish Breivik's Zionist views any further in the lead. He supports Zionism. The rest is written in the actual article, and has no place in the lead. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you base this view on reliable sources, since the above is your own analysis? Otherwise we have to stick to the established consensus, mentioned above. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Most sources do not explicitly mention "far-right zionism", rather they mention plain zionism or Breivik having "a sympathy for Israel". Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not correct. Among the sources that mention Zionism, the majority simply say that he consider himself a Zionist, but do not qualify him as such. The ones that actually go into analysis of his views, describe them as "far-right Zionism", "conservative Zionism", "proto-Zionism", by that distinguishing them from mainstream Zionism. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reuters Citation in Opening Paragraph

The Reuters source used to demonstrate that the article's subject is a "right wing extremist" - as detailed in the opening para - reads as follows:

" The Norwegian man detained after twin attacks in Norway on Friday that killed at least 17 people has links to right-wing extremism, independent Norwegian television TV2 reported on Saturday, without disclosing its sources."

So, Reuters is quoting a Norwegian TV station who, in turn, quote an 'undisclosed source' that says the subject has 'links' to 'right-wing extremism'. Using that as a reference, how can we say, wrt Wiki guidelines, that this shows that the subject is, in fact, a 'right-wing extremist'.

Another, more solid, source is needed, IMHO. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How someone in earnestly will argue that a sourced statement that Breivik is an "extremist" is should be removed on accuracy grounds is beyond my understanding. He killed 68 people because he didn't agree with their politics. That is the definition of extremism. The statement is sourced. I don't know what is worse - that you challenge a sourced statement just because you don't know where they got their information from - or the fact that you would even consider challenging that he is an extremist. This is really disturbing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• Goodwin, M. (2011), Europe's Radical Right: Support and Potential. Political Insight, 2: 4–7
• Jerrold M. Post The Generation of Vipers: The Generational Provenance of Terrorists SAIS Review - Volume 31, Number 2, Summer-Fall 2011, pp. 111-122
• [12]

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• OK - so you have sourced better citations and reverted my edits (now using even more sensationalist descriptors). Perhaps I shall go and edit Mohamed Atta's article to call hime something like, "An Moslem extremist follower of a pederast worshiping cult." - with appropriate sources, naturally ;-) Eddie.willers (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So your problem wasn't the sources afterall... you just don't think it is fair to call him an extremist. It would be a valid argument to say that calling him both extremist and terrorist is redundant. But what the sources actually say is that he had, and boasted to have, connections to right wing extremist organizations - in addition to being an extremist/terrorist himself. I don't give a rats ass about what you do to the Mohammed Atta article ... if you follow policy in doing it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this should read "a right-wing extremist, Christian terrorist, and confessed perpetrator of..." Anything less would be euphemistic and a whitewashing. The sources for these labels are already present and widespread. And I would have a geat deal of scorn for anyone who calls my personal views into question on this. A spade is a spade. Obotlig (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity

Some early media reports suggested he could be charged with crimes against humanity, but this is not the case[13], also today the psychiatrists found he is a paranoid schizofrenic[14]. Lukademi-demi (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The article you refer to does not outright say that the charges can't be changed to crimes against humanity. It just speculates that it is highly unlikely he would be convicted for any such charges (based on the (in)ability to define ~650 persons on the island as a civilian population). Thus they probably will not change the charges from the current terrorism ones.

The main part of the article is actually about the inability to make the whole new criminal law agreed to in the Storting in 2009 take effect because of trouble with the current IT systems' ability to handle the changes. If those new laws were in effect from the time they were agreed upon (and thus at the time of the attacks) then the max prison time would have been 30 years and not 21 years for the exact same terrorism charges.

But if the current insanity verdict remains in effect after it has been reviewed then that doesn't really matter anyway. Unless the Norwegian Supreme Court's ruling that allows for insane people that has been sentenced to compulsory mental health care and eventually is deemed sane can be moved to prison if they are still considered a danger to the society. [15] -Laniala (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia calling things absurd

Re: the following content added back here after I reverted it's addition.

• Attention was focused on his absurd ideas including that his so-called "Knights Templar" organisation would take power in Europe and insert him as regent of Norway, and his ideas of using Norwegians in breeding projects and place them in reservations.

It seems I wasn't clear. I removed it because Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice shouldn't be used to describe things as "absurd". It's an opinion that needs to be attributed to who ever said they were absurd. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize that I used a rather pov-term, although it was not very intentional. My primary intent was simply to add these key ideas of his to the article, and I have thus already corrected my old edit. —Filippusson (t.) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Norwegian newspapers, the psychiatric report (not available to the public) described those ideas as "bizarre delusions", which has a specific meaning in psychiatry. Maybe the word "bizarre" could be used instead. Theis101 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can he still be called a terrorist?

The article's lead sentence introduces Breivik as a terrorist, which was an entirely reasonable label to apply to him after the attacks. However, the court psychiatrists have now ruled that Breivik suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time of the attacks. Is the label "terrorist" still appropriate? It seems to me that the carrying out of the attacks are a symptom of Breivik's mental illness, whereas terrorism indicates something that is done "for a religious, political or ideological goal" according to our own Terrorism article, which we cannot now say. The bombing and shooting attacks are still terrorist acts, but describing Breivik as a terrorist seems wrong when the main backround is mental illness. Theis101 (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'll removing it. -- Heptor _talk 14:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of his mental state, he could still be a terrorist. What if Osama bin Laden turned out to be mentally unstable, would that mean he can no longer be labeled a terrorist? What Breivik did can be described as act of terror, done to wage a civil war in which he would be the leader of Norway (or something similar). Very delusional and weird, but that doesn't make him any less a terrorist. Besides, @Theis01, isn't this "original research" or did you actually find an article that says "now that Breivik has been declared insane he is no longer labeled a terrorist"? I say it should be placed back untill a concensus is reach (and consencus is not two editors). :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, mental and physical health is irrelevant to status as terrorist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

He might be a paranoid schizophrenic who committed a terrorist attack. The question is what description or category will best help the user? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That he is a terrorist, who just happens to be a paranoid schizophrenic on the side. He wouldn't be alone in that, since carrying out such horrendous acts requires quite some sociopathic tendencies a normal, sane individual would lack. Remorse and empathy would keep normal people from being terrorists, I believe. Not that it matters what I believe, the fact remains he is both a paranoid schizophrenic and a man responsible for committing acts of terror.

In any case, his mental history does not have to in the lead, it has it's own section already. Of course it can be a category, same as the terrorism which can also be put in a category. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's start naming sane terrorists... I'm not just talking about political groups labeled terrorists by their enemies, but people that neutral observers have to say "yep, that's a terrorist." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We would need a source saying that because he was judged legally insane he is not considered a terrorist. TFD (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason to assume that being insane and being a terrorist are mutually incompatible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think even if we found such a source, that would only belong in the section about his trial or insanity, and the description as terrorist would still be appropriate in the lede. He's still regarded as a terrorist outside the Norwegian legal system (if they somehow have decided he wasn't a terrorist when they found he was unfit to stand trial), and is notable for being known as a terrorist. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Writelord, TFD: now that Breivik was declared mentally ill, he can no longer be convicted of any crime, including terrorism. Of course, terrorism does not have a precise legal definition, but I think the principle should be applied by analogy.

It would be nice if only mentally disturbed people living in a confused reality were capable of killing other people. As it happens, mentally sane people kill for a variety of reasons, such as money, power or religious promise. Terrorism is promotion of a political agenda, which is not insane in the clinical sense. In case of Breivik, his paranoid delusions were the key factor and the motivation for his actions.-- Heptor _talk 17:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

But "commited actions which have been called terrorism by the international community" and "legally convicted as a terrorist in one nation's courts" are different things. His paranoid delusions shaped the political agenda which he killed for, his paranoid delusions lead him to commit terrorist acts. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@Heptor: It doesn't matter whether or not he can be prosecuted for it. You just call the beast by it's name. Say Hitler would be trialed at Nuremburg and declared mentally ill, should we then write he wasn't a dictator? What Breivik did can be accurately described as the actions of a terrorist. Thus, as a result, his actions can be described as acts of terrorism. He could be deaf, blind, autistic, borderline retarded, diagnosed with down syndrome for all I care, it doesn't change the fact that he is a terrorist. Norwegian law may say he cannot be prosecuted for what he did, instead committing him to an asylum for the insane, but show me where Norwegian law states that Breivik cannot be labeled as a terrorist. Whatever lead him to commit these acts, he did commit them nonetheless and this makes him a terrorist no matter what his mental or physical condition would be. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right Mythic Writerlord. Insane or not, ABB will still be put on trial for violating Norwegian terror laws. Numerous sources have made a point of this, including the prosecutor at the Oslo district court press conference, who announced the report. The trial will proceed as usual. The only difference will lie in the sentencing: that ABB will be sentenced to compulsory treatment/confinement in a mental institution instead of prison (if found guilty of the terrorist attacks and if found insane). Charlie 19:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yup. Basically, what everyone else has said: A, that the two are not mutually exclusive and B, that we go by what reliable sources have called him rather than by our own opinions that a mentally ill person cannot be a terrorist. "Terrorist" also needs to retain its original weight in the lead, because again, he is not less a terrorist for being mentally ill, and the mental illness is not why he is notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentally sick persons are of course not excluded from joining terrorist organisations, it's just that Breivik wasn't part of any - except those he imagined. Also, Breivik is on trial for murder, not terrorism. It was briefly considered to prosecute him by the so-called "terrorism paragraph", which applies to acts that "seriously disturb a basic function of the society [...][or] create a significant distress in the society [...]". This charge was however dropped, he is on trial "only" for murder, not terror. -- Heptor _talk 19:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

But, it's probably OK to leave the article either way, follow the external debate and see what comes out of it. -- Heptor _talk 19:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever said that a person had to be a member of an organization in order to be a terrorist? And again, it's about reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, to sum up the arguments for removing the terrorist label:

• There is a "terrorism paragraph" in the Norwegian law, and Breivik is not charged with it.
• The acts were committed due to paranoid delusion, not an actual political purpose.
• The Norwegian press usually labels him as mass murderer, not terrorist.
• He was not a member of any terrorist organisation.
• The references calling him "terrorist" are from before it was known that he suffered from schizophrenia.

-- Heptor _talk 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Anders Behring breivik is charged with violating paragraph 147a in the Norwegian criminal code, which is the so-called "terrorism paragraph".

http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19020522-010-018.html#147a

Comment: Defining ABB as a terrorist or a delusional is a matter of debate. Should he be convicted for violating paragraph 147a, the court will in effect rule that he is a terrorist. Also, we should keep in mind that he can be both. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. His views cannot be entirely disregarded as "crazy man's ranting". Conspiracy theories; yes - delusional in itself; hardly.

Charlie 12:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You all raise some good issues. As to the narrators neutral tone we must establish this between ourselves, based on reliable sources, logic, our understanding of language, etc. My preference would be fo an all-inclusive label something like: "the self-proclaimed perpetrator of [the mass murders] to serve extreme-right political, nationalitic social, and Christian religious goals, who has been found to have been influenced by paranoid-delusional thinking due to schizophrenia." Terrorism seems to fit in there somewhere. Does anyone question that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist? And he had no manifesto; we understand his intent implicitly and through second hand sources and (reasonable) conjecture. Per reliable sources. "Terroist" vs. "mass murderer" seems to be a trivial semantic quibble. Being insane doesn't alter the facts of actions and motivations (however distorted they may have been). I mean... thinking 99 virgins await after crashing a passenger plane into a skyscraper is not quite what most woud call "sane". Obotlig (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth; Norwegian media still refer to the attacks as "terrorist attacks" and to ABB himself as a "terrorist", even after the report on his mental health was released. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about points 1 and 3. The prosecutor considered to charge him with crimes against humanity (criminal code chapter 16), this is the one that was dropped. I agree with Obotlig that "terrorist" vs "mass murderer" is a question of semantics. It is obviously trivial compared to the gravity of the topic, but still important enough that it has to be decided. There is a difference between being crazy and being clinically insane, and Breivik is the latter. If the news media continues to refer to him as a terrorist, I guess it will be correct of Wikipedia to do it also, but I still think the label is semantically wrong. -- Heptor _talk 00:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a terrorist doesn't imply being a member of a terrorist organisation. In many countries, there are laws against terrorist organisations rather than terrorist individuals, not because the latter don't exist, but because the former are potentially more dangerous and are easier to spot before any terrorist act has been committed. These laws fill a gap in many jurisdictions which does not otherwise make it possible to prosecute terrorists who haven't gone beyond the planning stage. Laws that punish intent rather than acts are normally frowned upon for very good reasons, and punishing only the membership in a terrorist organisation is a compromise.

I don't know the Norwegian laws, but should the judge decide that the terrorism paragraph doesn't apply to Breivik because a single person can't be a terrorist organisation, then this could in no way be interpreted as implying that Breivik is not a terrorist. A terrorist is any person who kills or seriously hurts or endangers people for a purpose that is not immediately related to the act but indirectly, through instilling fear in the general population. That clearly applies here, and it has nothing to do with Breivik's (lack of) sanity. See also No true Scotsman. Hans Adler 09:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the Norwegian criminal law don't define the person in itself, just the acts someone did or were trying to do. Awkward translation of §147a (found in Norwegian here [16])

§ 147a. An offense as mentioned in §§ 148, 151 a, 151 b first paragraph cf. third paragraph, 152 second paragraph, 152 a second paragraph, 152 b, 153 first to third paragraph, 153 a, 154, 223 second paragraph, 224 , 225 first or second paragraph, 231 cf. 232, or 233 is considered a terrorist act and is punishable by imprisonment up to 21 years when committed with the intent

a) to interfere seriously with a function of fundamental importance in society, such as legislative, executive or judicial authority, energy supply, safe supply of food or water, banking and monetary system or health emergency preparedness and infection control,

b) creating serious fear in a population, or

c) unfairly forcing public authorities or an intergovernmental organization to do, tolerate or refrain from anything of significance for the country or organization, or another country or intergovernmental organization.

[...]

§ 148. Whoever causes conflagration, collapsed buildings, explosions, flooding, sea damage, railway accident or aviation accident whereby loss of life or extensive destruction of foreign property can be easily caused, or who is accessory thereto, shall be punished with imprisonment from 2 years up to 21 years, but not under 5 years if anyone because of the crime is killed or seriously injured to body or in health. Attempts are punishable equally to consummated crime.

[...]

§ 231. He who causes or contributes to inflict significant damage upon another person's body or health shall be punished for assault with prison for minimum 3 years. Has he acted deliberately then prison up to 21 years can be used, providing the crime has caused death.

§ 233. He who causes another's death or has contributed to it, shall be punished for murder with prison for at least 8 years.

The skipped over § contains text for actions (and their min/max sentences if done individually) I doubt have relevance, such as hijacking, starting/stopping/poisoning/contaminating conflagration/electricity/water/air/broadcasts, possession/use of poisons/chemical/biological/uranium/plutonium substances, contagious diseases, human trafficking/kidnapping/slavery/torture. I think you get the idea of what acts that might be defined as terrorism if used as described in the subclauses. The way I see it the media's statements of him (and the acts) being a terrorist is often based on the definitions by various experts on the subject. To whose definitions I agree and ABB and his actions fits for almost all of their definitions. Initially a lot more newspapers used it for the shock effect. Later it seems to me the lack of the same words by a other media is mostly to avoid angering their readers that might disagree with the words used to describe him, more so than the main content in the article itself. -Laniala (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Description of Mini-14 rifle

An anon editor objected to the description of the Mini-14 as a "carbine" and refered to the Ruger Mini-14 and Carbine articles which explicitly support this characterisation. This editor also removed the mention of the fact that some models of this rifle are select fire (fully automatic). In fact I think we do not go far enough to make clear what the weapons used are best described as. I remember seeing later in the article it described as a "poor-man's AR-15" which is (aside from being generous to the qualities of the Ruger) still euphemistic and obscure. AR-15 is the original ad still used name of the US military's M16. M16 is just their label for it by their naming conventions. My first government-issue M16 was prominently marked "Colt AR-15". It was fully automatic. I have also owned a Colt "AR-15A2" that was semi-automatic only. Also that the name of the Mini-14, its appearance and operation mimic the military's M14 which was a larger caliber (.308 or 7.62mm) and fully automatic (select fire anyway) contribute to both the description of this as a "carbine" (small rifle) and the need to make clear that these guns being mentioned come in many varieties and under different names and may be semi-auto, three-short-burst, or fully automatic but all clearly serve the same basic function. Why euphemise or obscure this? Mini-14s are commonly used by prison guards (due to cost). Obviously this type of weapon is designed for the shooting of persons. Glock pistols are extremely popular with police. Police don't use them for shotting bottles in their back yards. Spades are spades. Carbines are carbines (which is just a description of diminutive size). This is a military-style weapon with high capacity magazines using a cartidge developed explicitly for miltary use. Obscuring the truth doesn't serve anyone. Obotlig (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Financial information

The information on Behring Breivik's financials seems to rely a lot on what he claims himself in his manifesto. As mentioned in the article, a lot of this does not add up with income tax certificates and what the police investigation has revealed. His funds appear to have been smaller than what he say himself. New information has leaked from the police as well, such as Breivik possibly running an online diploma scam. I propose that all information on Breivik's financials that are not verified by tax certificates or reliable sources be removed from the article, as it is very unclear at this time how he earned money during the years leading up to the attacks. Charlie 14:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Premature unverified 3rd hand opinions vs known facts

The claim in the first paragraph that the gentleman is insane comes from Norwegian highly biased sources and has not been verified. It should be removed, the second paragraph provides sufficient info about the libel and it's origins.

Also, much of the infomation seems to be parroted from highly unreliable Norwegian newspaper articles which again just parrot the 2 Norwegian psychiatrist and each other, hardly independent sources as a casual reading of the article could lead people to believe.

The psych conclusions are already controversial and have at least in part become a political issue: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Foslobomben%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10016487

In conclusion, I think the article needs to be rewritten so that it clearly seperates between known facts and claims ultimately coming from questionable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.52.9 (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe your concern is addressed in the section Psychiatric evaluation. It qotes/references the psychiatrists's report itself, which I assume will count as a 1st hand source. Charlie 15:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Wikipedia does not care about "facts," it only summarizes what are generally regarded as reliable sources by significant portions of the population. Nationwide and professional newspapers tend to fit that decsription. The psychiatrists report would also fit that description, unless reliable sources demonstrating that the psychiatrist is wrong and/or not really a psychiatrist can be brought forward. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The psychiatrist report is a rather significant document since it was written by two court-appointed professionals, such reports form a major basis for a court's ruling on whether a defendant can be punished with imprisonment, or if he must be placed in a psychiatric treatment facility. With that said, the report has generated a great deal of controversy in Norway, and some other psychiatrists have claimed that there are weaknesses in the report. Per Sandberg, leader of the parliament's justice committee has demanded a new report (in turn, people have been criticizing him for interfering in the judicial process). A related controversy is whether Norway's insanity defense law needs reform. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede: December 2011

Regarding the edits by Asarlaí and Roscelese:

• As discussed above, the qualification as paranoid schizophrenic in the lede is appropriate since Breivik is known as such. The diagnosis is made by health care professionals, and has so far not been withdrawn or overruled.
• Breivik regards himself as a member/Justicular Knight of the knights templar, not a "templar-like organisation" as you phrased it.
• The source states "Expulsion of Muslims from Europe", why did you edit it to "Expulsion of muslims"?
• "Organise" is a valid spelling of the word

In case anyone else want to look, here is the diff in question. -- Heptor _talk 18:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• As alredy explaind by myself and Roscelese, Breivik isn't (in)famous for being a paranoid schizophrenic; he's (in)famous for perpetrating the 2011 attacks. That's the reason he has a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, his paranoid schizophrenia is alredy noted in the second paragraf. If we include "paranoid schizophrenic" in the very first line we may as well include "self-employed businessman, graduate of Oslo Commerce School, Christian, Freemason..."
• If you re-check my edit, you'll see that I was the one who changed "deportation of all muslims" to "deportation of all Muslims from Europe". You (maybe unknowingly) revertd it back to "deportation of all muslims".
• Lastly, the third paragraf was grammatically wrong. It said that his manifesto "includes support for varying degrees of cultural conservatism, ultranationalism, right-wing populism, Islamophobia, Zionism, anti-feminism, white nationalism and paramilitaries such as the Scorpions". The bit in italics should be in a new sentence, as it makes no sense to say "support for varying degrees of the Scorpions".

~Asarlaí 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove this section?

"It regards Islam and cultural Marxism as the enemy, and argues for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism, and the deportation of all Muslims from Europe (culminating in the year 2083) to preserve European Christendom."

I dont think this line fits in at the top of the page, but should be moved further down, to the "Religius and political views" section. --195.0.176.100 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)