Jump to content

Talk:2011 Norway attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.27.19.246 (talk) at 19:44, 23 July 2011 (→Is publishing pictures of mass murderers a good idea?: I agree with WP:NOTCENSORED..~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Attackers deleted Facebook as PDF-File

The attacker was not a muslim but a self declared conservative christian: http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Anders-Behring-Breivik-FACEBOOK.pdf --82.113.99.150 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He liked World of Warcraft and Call of Duty!! Video games made him do it!!! DARN YOU BLIZZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No but rather the far right wing blogs he used to read and post. --82.113.99.150 (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Reaction

The listed Israeli reaction doesn't appear to a valid news source. A Google search turns up nothing for "Jerusalem One", and I don't think a Tweet counts as official national reaction. I'm removing the listing. Windward1 (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, someone beat me to it. Windward1 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway, we list only reactions by heads of states and other notable figures. Many countries have inviolable freedom of press, and the fact that someone would be as low as to publish or pretend to publish this kind of rubbish does not mean we should give them any more visibility they deserve. --hydrox (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article also cites an Aftenposten article implying a relationship between islamphobia and support for Israel. I don't understand Norwegian, could someone check if the Aftenposten actually implied a relationship? If so, could someone explain what that relationship is, since in and of itself, the citation makes Aftenposten seem to have an anti-jewish prejudice? Is this actually the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.249.117 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest

One or more editors have added the claim that The shooting spree was the deadliest in modern Western history (assuming civilian victims), and the biggest act of violence in Norway since 1945..

I've removed this [1] ; although they've cited refs, I see this as original research / novel synthesis, because I have not seen reliable sources making the claim.

Discussion, of course, welcome. 07:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I knows the BBC World claimed it was the worst and/or deadliest violence in Norway since WW2. Dunno about the deadliest shooting spree part though Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't saying the deadliest violence even broader than saying deadliest shooting spree? In a sense, saying shooting spree is making it narrower and, thus, even more likely to be in line with the ref. SilverserenC 07:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um as I said, I'm talking about it being the deadliest/worst violence in Norway since WW2 (the text our unnamed friend said it was the biggest act of violence in Norway since 1945 which is fairly similar). As I though would also be clear from the context, when I referred to 'shooting spree part' I meant the text our unnamed friend above referred to it as the deadliest shooting spree in modern Western history (assuming civilian victims) which is a rather broad claim with very undefined terms. Now although rather broad because they refer to non overlappinmg subsets, this claim clearly isn't inherently broader then the Norway since WW2 part, i.e. it's possible that it is true but the Norway part isn't. Just as it's possible that the worst violence in Norway part is true but the shooting spree in modern Western history isn't. And as I said, there are refs (as a simple search will show) for the Norway part, but I have no idea if there are refs for the other part (and no, our article isn't a suitable ref). Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody already noted that this is relevant for the article Killing spree. He seems to top anyone there, at least... --hydrox (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need a reference.
If a reliable source says it is the 'deadliest spree' or whatever...then, yes, we can add it.
Give a reliable source, please - otherwise, it would be original research.  Chzz  ►  07:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that spree killing would seem to be different from shooting spree. If this event is classified as a spree killing it seems to be taking in to account the bombings and the later shootings as spree killing requires two different locations. Even if you call the shootings a shooting spree, it seems it itself wasn't a spree killing (although it may have been part of one) as it was basically only in one location. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources seem to be rather varied in their example of what it is the deadliest since.
Most of them seem to be comparing it to the 2004 Madrid one though. SilverserenC 07:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ja. Hi Silver seren; was waiting for you to turn up :-) And, indeed, "halps!"
I've no objection to some generic "Bigger than X", "Smaller than Y", etc - of course - as long as some RS has said it. But...you already know what I mean.  Chzz  ►  08:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the original version of this statement removed in the first place?. How exactly is it sensationalist? It's rather vital to discussing the subject by placing it in context. And more to the point it was removed for supposedly not being in the source yet it blatantly is!

"(CBS/AP)OSLO, Norway - A homegrown terrorist set off a deadly explosion in downtown Oslo before heading to a summer camp dressed as a police officer to commit one of the deadliest shooting sprees in history, killing at least 80 people as terrified youths ran and even swam for their lives, police said Friday." ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Minister himself has characterized the attacks in exactly that fashion: "The deadliest attacks [in the nation] since World War II" Surely you're not likely to find a more credible source to make that distinction. I'll try to relocate a link to the relevant press conference. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Snow[reply]

Archive

In the interests of keeping good order,

I've made Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 1 and moved some of the earlier comments - which I believe are now outdated - to the archive.  Chzz  ►  07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

I've removed it. WP:BOLD

[2]

It's like...we just quote stuff *because* we can quote it, because it is referenced.

How does it add to the understanding of the topic?

Maybe, perhaps, a parahraph or two, saying that the world was very very very sorry about it all...might be OK.

But all this? Seriously.

I can't think of a clean way of dealing with this, other than BOLDly removing it...I'm sure others will disagree with my action, and I welcome comments here.  Chzz  ►  07:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cleaner way: branch it to another article and await it's deletion. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, and it's a valid call; feel free to spin off "Reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks" if you want - it's probably notable. I'm just being pragmatic in my bold approach.  Chzz  ►  08:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction sections are a very common method of organization for articles and they contain information that readers wish to see. The length of this one is, however, fairly extensive in comparison to the overall length of the article, but that only means we need to WP:SPLIT it off into it's own article and put a summary paragraph or two in this article with a main article link to it. SilverserenC 08:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had added this to the reactions section above (typing it in at the same time as other edits were being made), but it belongs in this later discussion: In an encyclopaedia do we need a reactions section, or article, at all? Simply saying that most countries sent condemnation, condolences, and solidarity is enough. This is all sincere, but virtually automatic and not news; everyone says essentially the same thing. It IS perhaps notable that Libya and Pakistan added other comments, as it is different from everyone else. I've added a sentence to that effect, but consider the rest of the reactions section to be unnecessary for an encyclopaedia as against a newspaper. Pol098 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Added later: I see that the reactions section has been deleted; I have reinstated a very brief section, giving detail of only the two reactions different from the others. Pol098 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certain countries making comments and also certain comments, depending on what they say, are interesting and of importance to our readers. However, we cannot decide which reactions are of importance or interest, because that is original research. We have to include all of the reactions, since every one of them would be of importance to someone. For me, I always want to see who exactly is making the comment for the US and also, if it has to do with terrorism, what they say about it. SilverserenC 08:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make no apols for my abrupt actions. I've dealt with lots of these type of events now, and frankly, I've had enough of President Umbogo of Buugabuugaland said, "It's all very sad".  Chzz  ►  08:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this type of WP:NOTNEWS cruft is all too common, and will seem dated in a few months' time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adds nothing to the understanding of the event: it would be far more noteworthy if any head of government were to refuse such a statement of sympathy and outrage. This is an encyclopaedia, not a media-watch. One sentence would suffice. Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, it would be noteworthy in your opinion, but that opinion is one that shouldn't dictate inclusion. The sources should. SilverserenC 08:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there was some sort of a bug in my browser. I accidentaly reverted the article several hours back for 15 minutes, and the "reactions" list was restored for this period. Sorry for the inconvenience (and edit conflicts!) --hydrox (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of cause eveyone says the attacks were bad. Why is that notable? Really only if someone says something good about them it would be notable. -Koppapa (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, just after the attacks, there is possibly newspaper-type interest in the reactions, but in 10 years' time is it going to be relevant that France condemned and condoled? When discussing this, we do need to think encyclopaedia, not current event. Pol098 (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we also need to understand that Wikipedia considers a far wider range of information than a normal encyclopedia. Sections that describe reactions from various countries gives information such as political climes of the time between the affected country and the responsive countries. That's one type of information that is useful and would remain useful ten years from now. SilverserenC 08:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the argument, yeah; the other part is: does it help undestand the subject - ie, "2011 Norway attacks". Just 'coz a load of people have said "ooh, yes, it is awful!" in various countries...does not, I think, help with our encyclopaedic understanding.  Chzz  ►  08:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We must obviously agree to disagree, Silverseren. personally I can't see why information such as (randomly chosen): Chile: In a communiqué released by the Foreign Affairs MInistry, the government of Chile lamented the events at Oslo, calling the attacks an "unacceptable expression of violence that Chile strongly condemns." gives any information about the political clime (other than that Chile is not currently at war with Norway) or will be of any interest in ten years. More informative might be "Ruritania sent no message of condolence", and the genuine "Libya says it's NATO's fault". Pol098 (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the Libya response is rather informative. However, again, us deciding which ones are more informative and useful is original research. We can't just decide to keep some of them and deciding to remove all of them also removes genuine useful information that is beneficial to the article. Thus, we should keep them all in. SilverserenC 09:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Silver seren, please be quiet and listen to Chzz and Pol098. They are correct, you are wrong. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't just decide to keep some of them" [..] "Thus, we should keep them all in" - nope. We can "Thus" decide to keep them all out. Or, better still, we can present a balanced, fair summary.  Chzz  ►  09:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with the split page as it is right now. If people are interested in the reactions, then they'll click the link to the other page. Though the summary paragraph definitely needs to be fixed, it's very one-sided. SilverserenC 09:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The domestic reactions are becoming cruft. It is clear that politicians queued up to say how shocked they were etc, but there is no need to introduce repetitive material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

holiday?

The BBC states, "State Secretary Kristian Amundsen said Friday was a public holiday in Norway so the government offices were not as busy as they might usually have been." However, according to the article Public holidays in Norway and some external sources I checked there was no public holiday on Friday. My suspicion is that Amundsen said something like "Many government workers, like the public, was on holiday" (because this is the month Norwegians take vacation typically) through a translator, and the BBC editor morphed that to "government workers were on public holiday".

Can anyone familiar with Norwegian holidays and vacation-taking shed some light on this and why exactly there were fewer people than normal in the city center? - BanyanTree 09:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This period, the last weeks of June, is usually considered "common holiday" (fellesferie) in Norway. While it is not stated in any law that this is the case, it is a publically accepted term. Source: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellesferie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.155.130 (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not a public holiday, but a significant percentage of the population is on summer vacation. (The Norwegian "ferie" translates to "vacation", the Norwegian word for "holiday" is "helligdag".) Government offices are mostly inactive during the summer. However, it is not a holiday like Sundays or Christmas or Easter. For the most part shops and banks are open, and most businesses have some activity, although the activity is somewhat reduced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last weeks of JULY are considered "fellesferie", common holidays (Br.) or common vacation time (Amer.). Many offices which are open during this period have shortened hours, closing typically at 3 p.m. and sometimes earlier on Fridays. Thus there would be few people in public buildings at 15:26 on a Friday. Oslo people who can afford it usually spend their summer weekends away from the city; many people have cabins at the shore or in the mountains. Those people hurry home as early as possible on Fridays. --Hordaland (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism?

Why has this been called a terrorist attack? It's a nutter that's gone berserk. You wouldn't call Derrick Bird a terrorist would you? Needs to be changed in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.41.208 (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any unprovoked attack done to cause fear and panic against innocent civilians can be labeled a terrorist attack by definition, but I agree- let's call him a religious nutjob, furthermore a Christian religious nutter, but wait, that already means all Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.1.160 (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is early days, but the attack is beginning to have echoes of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. This is classed as a terrorist incident, even though a large organization was not involved. Derrick Bird did not plant a bomb at a government building, which suggests at least some political motive.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it seems to me it remains to be seen whether this is terrorism or another form of insanity, as it must depend on the motives of the perpetrator(s), as yet only conjectured only. But reliable sources do call it terrorism - I guess it comes from Norwegian authorities, and we should report that. -- In fact, it seems to be a case of fundamentalist Christian terrorism as much as rigth-wing terrorism - though terrorism, whether religious or not, is by definition (my definition at least) always political as it intends to impact society.--Nø (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very surprised that "terrorist" was removed from the lead. All the media is referring to the attack as "terror". NRK, TV2, VG, Dagbladet. The last of these links (Dagbladet) say that the police have charged Breivik for crimes in accordance with the Norwegian law on terrorism. I am restoring "terrorist" to the lead, and will add the last link as a cite for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Also Aftenposten reports that the police have charged Breivik for crimes in accordance with the Norwegian law on terrorism. (He can get 21 years.) --Hordaland (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be of arab descent or a muslim to be a terrorist. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)[1] 13:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously having a debate here about whether the bombing of three of a government's most senior ministry buildings, followed by a mass shooting spree at a youth camp that was sponsored by the dominant political party, all seemingly carried out by a man with a radical political, religious, and ethnic ideology qualifies as terrorism? Seriously? I think I would sooner classify E. Coli as "maybe" bacteria than I would consider these acts "maybe" terrorism. 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Snow[reply]

We have no evidence to suggest that this is actually terrorism, rather than a killing spree, other than speculation. This may not be terrorism as we have no proof that these attacks were intended to incite terror, and perhaps was seen as a game, as his interests on facebook would express.--TheGreatDefective (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think 67. makes a good argument. I understand the urge to obliterate the vague "terrorism" from the language altogether, but if there is such a thing, surely this is it. The perpetrators described the killing of civilians in Oklahoma City as collateral damage from a military attack, with some academic plausibility, but this was an attack on an island full of children. Wnt (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The attacks appear to be politically motivated with a goal of forcing change which certainly qualifies as terrorism to me. I'm not sure there are official sources yet for that information though, just bits and pieces of things the killer or someone using the killer's name had posted on the internet prior to the attacks in which he strongly denounced multiculturalism and marxism. 174.101.225.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Anders' picture

I believe that Anders' picture on Facebook could be uploaded to Commons once it was uploaded to Facebook by Anders himself under Creativecommons license. Is that correct ? Krenakarore (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is sorta OT but do you have any evidence it was uploaded under a creative commons licence? Facebook doesn't provide any way for you to specify a licence so it would have had to been mentioned in the comments or description or something of that sort which I find strange (but not impossible). Note that even if it was, this still doesn't guarantee it's okay, we don't accept any NC or ND licences. And also since his profile was as I understand it taken down and in any case I suspect the image was restricted, proving it was licenced in that way is likely to be difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this is all moot; the pictures are so widely distributed in the media now, I think we're well past the bar for fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Facebook image almost certainly fails WP:NFCC. Exactly the same thing happened with Jared Lee Loughner after the 2011 Tucson shooting. Eventually a free image of him turned up, but anything non-free will likely be deleted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's comparable (see the FFD for the picture currently open). Unlike in the US, most European countries, including Norway afaik, do not allow to release such photographs to the public. Additionally, Norway has no perp walk, no photos allowed in court, arrival in court will most likely be in secret etc., so most, if not all, possibilities that exist in the US to take a picture of a suspect do not exist in Norway. Regards SoWhy 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is early days yet, and the claim that a free image of him will never turn up is unrealistic. For any living person, there are likely to be free images somewhere. The Facebook image fails WP:NFCC#1--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian

The revision of this article I looked at a few seconds ago does not contain the words "Christian" or "Christianity" even once, despite Anders Behring Breivik's self-identification as a Christian. Look up another terrorist attack of your choice (e.g. 9/11, Madrid bombings, London bombings) and see how many times the words "Islam", "Islamic", "Islamist" and "Muslim" appear. This is shameful, Wikipedia. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Islamism was the primary motive of the other attacks. It is not yet clear whether Christianity was any part in the motives of the attacks. If it does happen to be the case than the article will be updated to reflect that accordingly. --Kuzwa (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'll say this much - I don't doubt for a second that we'll shortly have plenty of cause to include reference to his apparent extremist Christian ideology, but for the moment the issue is technically muddled. The police have as yet not released any information on the man's interrogation so far except to classify him as "extreme right" and apparently eager to explain the reasoning behind his acts. So presumably there will soon be plenty of material to explore this angle. Though, the reports I've read of his social media pages suggest he's more anti-Muslim than he is pro-Christian. Which is not to say that he can't be both (I'd be surprised if he wasn't), but we have more evidence for one than we do the other. Personally I'm more upset by the lack of the term "wormy little fucktard douchebag who apparently wants to try usurp Hitler's longtime claims to A) beingthe most counterproductive waste of human tissue, and B) having the most ridiculous facial hair to be seen on a pathetic effeminate face." But we have to work towards a consensus when it comes to terminology. Maybe I can get a vote? 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Snow[reply]

He acted in an unchristian way!82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan reaction

I think that the Libyan reaction should be mentioned here - after all the Norwegian jets take part in bombing Libya, and this connection was one of the first speculations of media.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libya was not part of the plot!82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian language problem

Can someone help me? When I put a norwegian web site into english with google translate, the words "bugs" and "vermin" are common in news articles. Ex. Kjetil Vevle tweeted " Someone shoot the vermin. Update the police!" Thanks, --93.137.108.94 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that google translate translates Utøya to bugs or vermin. Weird. Tooga - BØRK! 11:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does this because of the word "utøy" (vermin). "Utøy" consists of the parts "u" and "tøy". While "Utøya" consists of "ut" ("out") and "øya" ("the island"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.75.9 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though arguably you're inevitably going to see the word 'vermin' associated with the perpetrator(s) of these acts in Norwegian sources anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Speedy close. Editors are advised that previous discussion arrived at an overwhelming consensus to keep and wait, and we should wait a few days if not a few weeks before having this discussion again. As an aside, I remind editors that WP:BLP1E is not a blanket/automatic prohibition on BLPs notable for one event, and specifically, says If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. --Cerejota (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article Anders Behring Breivik be merged to 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator for the time being. Per WP:BLP1E we do not have separate articles for people who are notable for one thing only (in this case, the attacks), unless they attract persistent coverage in reliable sources. This man will probably qualify for a separate article if and when he goes to trial, but right now it's too early to tell. As a practical matter, the information at 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator is now essentially a duplicate of Anders Behring Breivik, and it is impractical to keep both versions up-to-date and error-free. That's why I propose to merge the content back for now and spin it out again as soon as it becomes too large, per WP:SS.  Sandstein  11:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at [3], no consensus to merge. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at least wait a few days before making another proposal, the prior one finished a few hours ago. Give it a few days and that will give time and more perspective to see whether Breivik will turn out to be an exception or not to the rule and also won't have us doing back to back merge proposals, which is counter-productive. SilverserenC 11:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't see the previous one. It ran only for eight hours or so, but there does seem to be no consensus to merge.  Sandstein  11:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third proposal for the same request today. The first is here. The second is here. I continue to stand by my opposition. The magnitude of the crime perpetrated here is right up there together with Seung-Hui Cho and Timothy McVeigh, both who have separate articles without any controversy whatsoever. The BLP1E policy is to prevent "coatrack" articles on low-profile individuals (typically: victims who get caught up in major events), but perpetrators who become the subjects of mass scrutiny because of their crimes do not fall under that category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's clear that this person is in the same category as the other two perpetrators you mentioned, but right now there is simply too little verified information to support a full article. We should develop the content in the main article until it's large enough to spin out. This avoids duplication of effort.  Sandstein  12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This has already been discussed twice within the last 12 hours. Last time the consensus was leaning on wait. --hydrox (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as above. notable subject etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a textbook case of WP:1E, so I would agree with "speedy close" as long as the merger is also implemented at the same time. There is no reason whatsoever under our guidelines to keep this page separate. The "magnitude of the crime" is completely irrelevant here. The history of notability is. Once this guy has through years of trials and re-trials, perhaps a bio page will be arguable. Certainly not now. Arguing from the "magnitude of the crime" is an extremely misguided attempt to make this a moral discussion, suggesting that the merge proposal goes to belittle the severity of these events. This is completely wrong. Wikipedia does not have a policy of "the more notable an event, the more pages we need to create about it". --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspect has has been charged

I don't know where this would fit in but from BBC News and Sky News police have charged a 32 year old male over both attacks which is believed to be Anders Behring Breivik. Just thought this was useful information and if someone could add it to the article.Jonny109 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, English-language source confirming the charges is really useful. --hydrox (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV in section "Alleged perpetrator"

Please User:ShipFan insists on marking this section as POV. Please discuss here, what the problem with this section. --hydrox (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section contains second hand hearsay and allegations about somebody who is only a suspect (not convicted of a crime). This violated WP:BLP. A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. ShipFan (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters you're using the wrong tag. But anyway can you please give some specific examples of what you feel is at issue? BTW, do note that even if he was convicted of a crime, BLP still applies and second hand hearsay and allegations are still a problem Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No? Really? Innocent until proven guilty? You must have watched too much television.. seriously though, I copyedited the section in the neutralest, most innocent-assuming way possible. Please see if you are happy with this. We can not go much further, if we want to be still able to express information reported by multiple WP:RSs in the section. --hydrox (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "hearsay", if you mean that the information is sourced to newspaper articles written by journalists who didn't witness the attacks, then it is what Wikipedia calls "secondary sourcing", which is the preferred type of sourcing for articles. "Only a suspect" is "not guilty unless and until convicted" does not seem to apply here considering that the person was caught more or less red-handed, with weapons and his police uniform disguise, at the scene of the crime. The "only a suspect" concerns are treated seriously to protect potentially innocent people (e.g. names are generally not released by the media until there is a conviction), but if there are no serious or reasonable doubts, that standard is not adhered to slavishly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to change the heading from "alleged perpetrator" to "suspected perpetrator". The Oslo police have formally charged him as a suspect[4], and as such "supspected" is more correct than "alleged" in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the section heading for the last three hours, give or take. --hydrox (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, was probably looking at some old cached version. Bjelleklang - talk 15:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Stewart Mill quote.

The old version said that he was an admirer of Mill, but he only quoted Mill on his twitter account. The quote is "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests". I've changed it to reflect this. Source: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080610--Havermayer (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please fix

From the article: "Reports initially suggested that car bombs[11] exploded at the same time at Youngstorget (Young's Square) in Oslo, outside the office of Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and other government office buildings such as the Oil Ministry[11] and Ministry of Finance,[11] with many windows blown out. This later proved to be wrong.[12]"

What proved to be wrong? That windows were blown out? Seriously, that sentence needs clarification. --Hordaland (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are simply wrong, but involved editors starts edit wars to keep the false information in the article. There were no bombs at Youngstorget, and the office of Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and other government office buildings such as the Oil Ministry[11] and Ministry of Finance are simply not at Youngstorget at all. The bomb was located between R4 and H-blokka, that is in Grubbegata. 87.248.5.62 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually quite funny: On 23 July 2011 at 15:25 (CEST) a powerful expolosion went off on Youngstorget (Young's Square) in Regjeringskvartalet, downtown Oslo, near the offices of the Prime Minister of Norway and several other governmental buildings, such as the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Ministry of Finance. Youngstorget isnt part of Regjeringskvartalet, yet both are downtown Oslo. There was no bomb at Youngstorget, its an erroneous report in Swedish Expressen. The bomb was located in in Grubbegata. Youngstorget is located to the right and outside the map in the article. Jeblad (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Breivik in FrP

Possibly of interest as a source: http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/article3196591.ece (in Norwegian). --Hordaland (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned in his dedicated article. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 15:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing persons

I hear some people are still missing. Just wondering if Google Person Finder been considered. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police says that 4-5 people are still missing at Utøya (possibly more) and also indicated that more people are missing in relation to the bombing. They expect the death-toll to rise. The article should say Death(s): 7+ (Oslo), 85+ (Utøya). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.179.209.64 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disassembled?

Troll, blocked, ignore

The bombing disassembled seven human beings ...

... opened fire at the campers, disassembling at least 85 attendees

Seriously? disassembled? Who the heck wrote this article. 24.201.59.148 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-native english speaker, likely. WP:SOFIXIT. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was vandalism. It has been fixed and the vandal is now blocked. Prolog (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't understand that kind of behavior. It's a tragedy, I can't see what's to laugh about.

Poor English?82.27.19.246 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like a strange choice as a synonym to "killed" or "dead". Specially at the beginning, where it announces that "seven human beings" have been "disassembled" by the explosion. It looks like they've been torn apart, which may be true, but still sounds crude and insensitively "robotic". And later, when we read about the shootings, it gets worst, using that weird term on and on. Like Terminator or Robocop writing the news: "Critical explosion in structure. Disfunctional human executing forbiden proccess. Human beings disassembled. Suspect terminated. All systems operative." Please, let someone with better writing skills than me, change it, and use normal words.

EDIT: I've seen it was just fixed. Thanks.

It's a troll who was last seen doing the same thing on Japanese earthquake articles. Revert, block, ignore. Acroterion (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An illiterate user?82.27.19.246 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Account disassembled for vandalism!82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is publishing pictures of mass murderers a good idea?

Experts on the subject recommend not publishing pictures of mass murderers to avoid encouraging copycat killings. I'm not entirely comfortable with Wikipedia breaking that guideline. As the picture is also nominated for deletion can we remove it soon? The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many think that that's bullshit. Verify your sources. --TheGreatDefective (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saw an expert talking about it on Charlie Brooker's Newswipe. Also here and there are many others pleading to stop giving publicity to mass murderers. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we delete Adolf Hitler? Wnt (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED. If someone said this elsewhere, it carries little weight on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WP:NOTCENSORED. We need to know what the guy looks like.82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water temperature?

For those who haven't been to Norway, it would be nice if we could find a statement about the water temperature around Utoeya Island. This source touches on it [5] but it isn't very clear to me: some survivors jumped into the water, but I don't know how long they could stay there. There were boats with rescuers... did this turn into a search of the water for survivors (or corpses), almost like with a capsized ship? Wnt (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard anything about a major search for survivors, but it has been supposed some might have drowned. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The water temperature is 19°C at this camping site, which is located at a different place at the same lake - http://www.onsakervika.com/akkurat-naa/badetemperatur.html So around the Utøya island it was probably 17°C-19°C depending on the currents, which is not too bad a water temperature for Norway during the summer. Probably about the same air temperature, but occasionally rainy. Maybe a couple of degrees lower. http://www.yr.no/sted/Norge/Buskerud/Hole/Ut%C3%B8ya/ The shortest distance from the island to the mainland if you look at a map is about 600 meters. More if you don't pick the shortest route which a lot of those fleeing not necessarily did in trying to escape. Many might already have been exhausted from the panic and running on the island itself. Many might not have been excellent swimmers, and perhaps wearing cumbersome clothes if it was raining at the moment. So the people that are still missing (and might bring the death toll higher) are being searched for in the water and shorelines. Only time will tell if those still missing people actually were shot in the water or drowned from exhaustion and not being picked up in time by a boat or against all odds are alive somewhere. -Laniala (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admirer of Winston Churchill and Max Manus

I removed the sentence saying that he was an admirer of them. The reason being that he only listed them as interests on fb, which doesn't necessarily mean he admired them. We just don't know. I'm waiting for more sources on this. --Havermayer (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been widely reported and is reliably sourced. We cannot rely on your interpretation of whether it's correct, only on what reliable sources report. JonFlaune (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why insult Winston and Max! Anders’ words on his Facebook page are not WP:RS. We need a stronger sorce.82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on transportation

The 'Impact on transportation' section is pretty trivial, in the overall scheme of things; shall we remove it? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anders' Book 2083

Allegedly this is his book http://www.2shared.com/file/M-s-2fBD/2083-AEuropeanDeclarationofInd.html From the last pages in the book it seems it is indeed his book. The last pages also detail his plans.

Timeline

AP has just put out a timeline [6] which made me think...a timeline of some kind would really help the article. I suppose it could be a graphic, or a table - or prose; I don't know.

Any ideas, or indeed anyone just adding something, welcome.  Chzz  ►  19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A table of events?82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Norway_attacks&oldid=441051289"