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 Aaronwayneodonahue (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 2 August 2011 (Heroes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sizable sections of Breivik's manifesto copied from Unabomber's

Another issue that is coming to light is that apparently significant sections of Breivik's manifesto are copied and pasted from Theodore Kaczynski's manifesto, with just the odd word changed to alter the institutions the rant is directing against.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/anders_breivik_unabomber.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/07/24/oslo-utoya-norway-attacks-anders-breivik-manifesto-unibomber_n_908143.html

Victims?

There is a section for the Perpetrator, but no section for the Victims. Do we have any information about the victims yet? Who they were? At least one victim (the off duty police officer) has been reported in the media. Burghardts (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the news cycle. Once the big media collectively finishes reading the "manifesto" (reportage on that remains a work in progress), the wall of victims will be trotted out (around Thursday this week, maybe Friday, unless Norwegian law forbids it, and even it it does, many leaks by the weekend).Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Victims are generally not acknowledged individually, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but some may be notable in their own right, or as, say, the youngest. At least an overview (how many, by age, gender, etc) is needed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not even WP:SINGLEEVENT, but WP:MEMORIAL also. If there are notable victims in that are verifiable in reliable sources we *might* include them - but if they were notable before the event the information is better included in their article in wikipedia (or one created if they didn't have one - if they were notable before the attacks), but we do not do this even in September 11 attacks. Even being the youngest victim is still WP:SINGLEEVENT, so I would be careful about inclusion. Notability is a general or specific criteria of an individual, and it is not inherited, so being notable within a single event doesn't necessarily mean notability in a wikipedia sense. I know it is frustrating that we often speak of the perpetrator and little about the victims, but consider that the perpetrator generally has the intent of scrutiny, whereas the victims were private people who do not necessarily want their lives - even if cut short - examined voyeristically because of the actions of someone else. Its about respecting privacy and exercising decorum, as much as it is about encyclopedic quality. --Cerejota (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between being notable enough to be the subject of an article; and to be mentioned in one. It would be perfectly acceptable to say something like "Victims ranging from the youngest, Fred Bloggs, 13, to the oldest, John Doe, 67". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breivik first shot camp hostess and security officer?

Yesterday's Ilta-Sanomat reported that Breivik's first victims on Utoøya were the camp hostess and security officer. The hostess was already suspicious of Breivik when he first arrived on the island, so she went to talk to the security guard, at which point Breivik killed them both. Are there any other sources for this? JIP | Talk 05:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the same in Aftonbladet today. But they don't cite their sources. --Popoi (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does Ilta-Sanomat. I haven't read this news anywhere else. I wish I remembered the name of the camp hostess. The only thing I remember was that her first name was something like Sigurd or Solveig and her last name ended in "ei". She was called "the mother of Utøya". If I remembered her full name I could do a Google search for her name + Anders Behring Breivik to try to find reputable sources. JIP | Talk 22:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her name was Monica Elisabeth Bøsei, and it was mentioned in Norwegian newspapers too. Those cited witness reports from survivors. -Laniala (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search for her name. The only results that contained anything more than her name, birthday and place of birth were Danish newspapers which said that she was suspicious of Breivik and therefore was the first one to die. Nothing such in Norwegian newspapers. Do these qualify as reputable sources? JIP | Talk 08:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same story has been reported by Norwegian media. DES (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Sigurd is a man's name. DES (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More victims named

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14294251 - I'm working so can't do anything with that right now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victims Section excised

I excised the section entitled "Victims" (DIFF) for two reasons - firstly as per WP:SINGLEEVENT/ WP:MEMORIAL, and secondly because at present it contained only two names. I don't believe that a list of all 76 victims is appropriate, but as always, lets obtain a consensus first. Manning (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Much as I believe the victims are worthy of memorial, this is just not the place for it. It's clearly inconsistent with encyclopedic tone. Certainly if any noteworthy names pop up, they can be given mention. That always leaves a bad taste in my mouth in cases like this (vs. other WP:SINGLEEVENT scenarios) because,in the context of talking about a person's death it feels like we're saying some are less worthy of being remembered than others. Nevertheless, this is clearly what Wikipedia policy requires of us here. In any event, even if there are a few notable names (it's possible a high-ranking public servant might have been killed in the bombing, for example, and we of course know about the crown princess' step-brother) I doubt there will be enough for a separate section, and it would read awkwardly to have a section labelled "Noteworthy" victims anyway. Clearly the names, if any, need to be placed in another section. Which though, I couldn't say. Snow (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of showing my age, let me say that an argument of this very nature dates back to 9/11 - by November 2001 one devoted editor (Cunctator) had created over 1000 article pages in an attempt to memorialise every single victim - it represented nearly 10% of the entire Wikipedia at the time. It was decided back then (and remains policy to this day) that we don't create "memorial lists". Manning (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I knew the memorial policy and the reasoning, but I'd never heard how it was precipitated. But clearly one of those things that made Wikipedia leaner and more effective, though arguably the policy might have developed anyway, forced by convergent guidelines and tone considerations. Snow (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the remnants of the memorial discussion on Meta (itself a copy of what started in Wikipedia). The whole exercise got moved to a new domain early in 2002, and that domain has since died. The whole thing was a bitter, bitter dispute. Manning (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for adding the list, did not know of the policy. But my main reason for adding the list was not the names, but the ages of the victims. Can I make a age list sort of like Casualties of the September 11 attacks - Non-American casualties (only age of the victims). Something like:
Age Total fatalities
10 4
18 2
40-50 2
User:46.67.217.180 —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I think that would probably be appropriate content (oncw sourced, of course!), but I'm not sure it needs to be in list form. maybe just a comment along the liens of "50 of the victims were children aged 11-18, the rest adults." Those of course are just guesses at what the actual numbers may be, for the sake of providing an example, of course. Snow (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victime section excised... again

I feel like a schmuck for doing this to an IP - one who had clearly put a fair amount of work into this. However unless we have a major policy shift, lists of victims do not belong in the article.

For posterity, and review, here is the table that the IP had created: Manning (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>XXX ==Victims==
>XXX ===Utøya===

Name Birth Age From
Sharidyn Svebakk-bøhn 1997-07-17 14 Drammen
Silje Merete Fjellbu 1993-11-13 17 Tinn
Hanne A. Balch Fjalestad 1967-10-13 43 Lunner
Bano Abobakar Rashid 1992-12-28 18 Nesodden
Syvert Knudsen 1993-08-21 17 Lyngdal
Diderik Aamodt Olsen 1992-06-03 18 Nesodden
Simon Sæbø 1992-07-25 18 Salangen
Synne Røyneland 1993-01-18 18 Oslo
Anne Lise Holter 1959-09-16 52 Våler, Østfold
Trond Berntsen 1960-05-12 51 Øvre Eiker
Birgitte Smetbak 1996-02-25 15 Nøtterøy
Margrethe Bøyum Kløven 1995-03-03 16 Bærum
Even Flugstad Malmedal 1992-12-06 18 Gjøvik
Gunnar Linaker 1988-07-07 23 Bardu

>XXX ===regjeringskvartalet (the Government Quarter)===

Name Birthday Age From
Tove Åshill Knutsen 1954-07-31 56 Oslo
Hanna M. Orvik Endresen 1950-03-21 51 Oslo
Kai Hauge 1978-07-31 32 Oslo
The list is from https://www.politi.no/Kampanje_70.xhtml (the offical list for now). Did not know about the policy, so sorry for adding it.
Dude (or Dudette) - no apology needed! I felt bad for removing it as you had put a decent amount of effort into it. I hope it doesn't sour your experience at Wikipedia. Cheers Manning (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly should have a sentence that the official list of the dead is available from that location. Also I should note that there's a new Wikipedia competitor www.wikialpha.org that would accept the material, though I don't know yet if any appreciable number of people will ever be seeing it. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-neutral pov quote from independent

'Outcry over role of English Defence League', currently footnote number 98, misrepresents Breivik's attitude towards the EDL by selectively quoting from his manifesto, Breivik called the EDL 'naive fools' and disagreed with their non-violent methods. here's a quote from the manifesto:

'KT was formed back in 2002 as a revolutionary conservative movement because we had lost hope that the democratic framework can solve Europe’s current problems. The EDL, on the other hand, IS a democratic movement. They STILL believe that the democratic system can solve Britain’s problems… This is why the EDL harshly condemns any and all revolutionary conservative movements that employ terror as a tool, such as the KT. And this is why, we, the KT view the EDL as naïve fools, wasting all their energy monkey- screaming to deaf ears while they should instead have focused on means and methods that are meaningful in regards to achieving true political change, in regards to tearing down the multiculturalist regime known as Britain. Unfortunately, the only meaningful resistance at this point in time is to use military force.'

the independent conveniently leaves out that Breivik disagreed with what he saw as the EDL's non-violent, democratic methods. AdamDavid (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anyone else wants to remove this non-neutral source? AdamDavid (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the guy eschews non-violence seems to be pretty obvious and leaving this out doesn't seem to be POV at all to me. Given the emotive subject you'd have to be a hardcore Vulcan to be NPOV about it. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think his argument -- and I could be wrong here, because the comment is a bit vague to me -- is that a link has been suggested between the EDL and Breivik, either direct communication or a sympathy for the EDL on Brevik's part, wheras David is saying that this link seems unlikely given Breivik holds them in such low esteem. However, it's important to note that, whether the link exists or not, the current furor towards the EDL is a very real thing. I've heard it commented upon by Norwegians, Brits, and Americans in the last 24 hours, which means it must be well represented in the media of all three countries. In fact, one of those persons was a journalist I was having a conversation with. So the source is still valid, if only to reflect that fact, even if the link does prove to be false. However any content in the article itself derived from that source may be subject to change. But I really think we need to wait for more information before doing anything. Snow (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to change... and changed --- be bold! claiming that this guy supports the EDL or that the EDL leadership supports his actions just can't be proven so i edited the section political beliefs. agreed the 'independent' source should stay if only to show how the attempt is being made to link this atrocity with non-violent european anti-islam movements. AdamDavid (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's extremely premature. Breivik's manifesto is a primary source and as such it cannot be used to contradict a secondary source, and there are a lot of secondary sources reporting on a possible link to the EDL right now. Until there are sources of equal established validity disproving those claims, the content should stay in. And honestly, even putting Wikipedia policy aside for a moment, there's no reason to trust the manifesto about any detail that has not yet been confirmed; I certainly don't trust a man who would mass murder children and claim it was justified for the greater good not to obfuscate for the same reason. And quite frankly, having read quite a bit of that bizarre document, it's clear to me that there are many statements in there that are almost certainly lies, half-truths, and outright delusions, and no doubt a great deal of intentional misdirection. These are the types of reasons primary sources are not consider valuable references in the first place. But, whatever, the story will develop quickly I'm sure. We'll soon know at least a little about whether there's cause to replace it or if it should stay gone. I wouldn't be surprised either way, honestly. Snow (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a couple of sources that seems to suggest that there was atleast some contact between members of the EDL and ABB: [1][2]. Im not very familiar with the british press though, so im uncertain about their reliability. TRambler (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Telegraph is a very solid source, a newspaper that's about as old as they come with a decent reputation for veracity. Also, they are noted for being strongly right-leaning, editorial-wise, so if they are leading the charge on this story, there's a good chance the evidence is compelling. The daily Mail, by comparison, is more tabloid in nature, but it is one of the largest newspapers in the country in terms of circulation and I think passes muster as an acceptable source. Snow (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just have a problem with secondary sources using the manifesto as a source to claim that breivik supported the edl when on the same page breivik calls the edl 'naive fools' and condemns their commitment to the democratic process. i added a secondary source that cites breivik and provides a more neutral point of view.[1] AdamDavid (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the EDL's blog is not an appropriate source, anymore than the manifesto itself is. It' a primary source in this instance for one, and hardly qualifies for NPOV. Snow (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why we allow a secondary source that cherry-picks sentences from 2083 when the result is not a neutral or even accurate portrayal of the killer's views, and why no one has found and added a secondary source that bothers to be fair and balanced AdamDavid (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the irish times quotes the edl's quote of the manifesto, its a little footnote at the end that i dont think would conform to WP:SAY AdamDavid (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, i'd say the article [2] is about 3/4 balanced AdamDavid (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you feel those sources are cherry-picking, but seeing as we are not working the in the context of their editorial or fact-checking departments, but rather in the context of Wikipedia, that means absolutely nothing. Wikipedia is not investigatory in nature and it is not our place to pass judgement on the working process of our sources. We form content by assimilating the information we find in valid and appropriate sources, not by generating it ourselves based on what we with is more likely to be true based on personal logic and perspective. It doesn't matter if you think a source is "3/4", or "20%", or "barely even a teeny-weeny bit" "fair and balanced"; what matters is solely if it is a valid and appropriate source and whether it actually supports the information for which it is cited. However, that being said, having read the Irish Times' article, it seems like it's good enough grounds to introduce something along the lines of "The EDL, however, has denied any association with Breivik and disavowed any support for violent extremism, further noting that Breivik's own manifesto is critical of the group as 'anti-fascist, anti-violent and anti-extremist'". It's a quote of a quote of a quote, which, obviously is pretty far from ideal, and the EDL seem to be taking some liberties in how they quote Brevik as well, but I'd just barely be comfortable with it as consistent with policy guidelines. Don't be surprised if you get resistance from others with stricter perspectives on the guidelines though, so be careful what you claim the article claims, because the quote is small and does cite any of Breivik's actual words from the manifesto.
But even accepting that source, let me say that you seem very devoted to trying provide proof to support the EDL's position, so please try to remember that WP:NPOV does not mean that you try to keep sources honest and "balanced", it means you must be neutral in how you approach the sources. Those are two entirely different things. And I think you need to be prepared to deal with further claims on this issue -- after-all even the Irish Times article you are citing here is primarily concerned with the fact that Searchlight has claimed to have turned up a lot more evidence, of a much more convincing nature, to demonstrate a clear link between Breivik and the EDL and they are not the only group investigating the issue who has made this claim in the last couple of days. Why you are so certain that the EDL could not in any way be linked to the man, I don't know. Personally, having read some of the responses to the attack on the groups discussion pages, it's clear that at least some EDL supporters who sympathize with Breivik and support his actions. Maybe that doesn't characterize the vast majority of people associated with the group, but it only takes a handful to establish what could honestly be called a "link", which is a pretty innocuous and mild term, afterall. As for Breivik's dismissing the group as counterproductive to his goals, let's remember that this is a man who coldly and methodically gunned down scores of children out of devotion to his '"cause"; do you really think it's beyond this man to lie to you and anyone reading his manifesto in order to protect other people he might have been working or who he saw as potential supporters of his views? That seems like a rather selective way of analyzing the man's character, especially when his stated goal is to try to get borderline-extremist members of far-right (but largely non-violent) groups to arm themselves and carry out further attacks. Anyway, I'm obviously not going to add any of that perspective into the content any more than I'd sit still for someone using original research to claim that here was no link whatsoever, I'm just trying to warn you that you need to be prepared for the fact that an avalanche of sources further claiming a link could be on it's way in, and you'll have to make peace with what they claim if people decide to add that content. That's just the nature of the beast with Wikipedia. Snow (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
according to WP:Primary, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." i think that's what i did by quoting the manifesto directly in the political beliefs section, but i used the irish times source too. AdamDavid (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think this is a much better argument than those you've made above. Just be careful, it's one thing to replicate a statement that shows criticism for the EDL, it's another to claim that this even suggests he wouldn't work with the EDL, since even this crosses well over into the principal (found right after the sentences you quoted) of "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." There are a thousand reasons why Brevik might have made that statement and yet still associated with people in the EDL; he might have lied outright, or he might have changed his mind, he might have jumped at the chance to associate with people who shared even a fraction of his personal philosophy, he might have been trying to find more radical elements amongst the group, he might have been looking for material support and was willing to work with a group he didn't really respect. Those kinds of vagueries collectively represent just one of the many reasons we try to avoid primary sources as entirely as possible and that, when we do allow them, it is only with the tightest of restrictions upon the wording of content that they are used as a source for.Snow (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so you think that the quote "the EDL harshly condemns any and all revolutionary conservative movements that employ terror as a tool" from the primary source that's referenced in the irish times should go back in? AdamDavid (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medals and commendations...

There's this picture out with all kinds of military bars and ribbons and medals, which I suppose might speak volumes to someone who knows something about the military.[3] Question: do they, or is it just some pattern he picked out because it was pretty? I see he has a Templar Cross on a black ribbon, which I suppose he must have awarded himself for the heroic assault on the unarmed teenagers... I wonder if the purple ribbon is like a Purple Heart, which alas he awarded in error. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of a US Army Combat Paratrooper medal... not a bad achievement for a guitar player from Sydney. (In case you missed the sarcasm, unless there is a military citation to go with it, medals don't mean squat). Manning (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
they are an amalgam he created. http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1592811.ece I would say it is meaningless except as an example of his self aggrandizement megalomania and his focus on the crusades.23:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.44.109 (talk)
Well, one of the ribbons apparently means "prisoner of war". Yet, in his "manifesto", he talks about how he intends to die while killing as many enemies as possible.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently that plan went out the window the very second he saw another armed man as opposed to children fleeing for their lives. Worm... Snow (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can get only a fraction of the image for the big jpg in the linked source here. How do you get that a ribbon means P.O.W.? Which one? Wnt (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: Maybe you can download the jpg and view it outside of the browser. The description of the ribbon reads "Krigsfange", probably meaning former POW. @Snow: I'm actually glad that local police did not intervene, as in all likelihood, Breivik would have simply shot them, resulting in even more deaths.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uniform is a USMC dress uniform with freemason buttons, and the ribbons are actual US decorations.

Based on http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1592811.ece, here's a rough translation of the ribbons he awarded himself, from top to bottom and left to right, with their actual significance (as near as I can make them out, cf. Awards and decorations of the United States military and Authorized foreign decorations of the United States military) in parentheses:

As you can see, some of them correspond to actual US military awards (Prisoner of War Medal, Purple Heart) but most are pure fantasy. I can't imagine the anger US servicemen and -women must feel at seeing a USMC uniform and award ribbons defiled in this manner.

The medals are, from left to right: “Knight of Malta”, “Knight Templar”, “Constantine's Red Cross”. Apparently, the “Knight Templar” cross is issued to martyrs, while the other two are issued for 10 and 15 successful actions, respectively.

The shoulderboards (and, I presume, the collar insigna) mark him as a “Justiciar Knight Commander”. The source claims this is a World of Warcraft rank.

The emblem on his left shoulder is of his own design; the hilt of the dagger is in the shape of a templar cross, and the skull's forehead is branded with three symbols representing communism, islam and nazism.

DES (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite an impressive list of make-believe honours and credentials. I can't help but wonder...if this guy had only discovered Dungeons and Dragons before violent extremism, the sad state of his mind might have stayed between him and his Dungeon Master.... Anyway, I question whether any of this is worth mentioning in the article. Yes, it can be sourced (which is perhaps more than I can say for a significant portion of content changes that people have been proposing/making on the page), but does it contribute significantly to our understanding of the subject? At a certain point we have got to stop obsessing over the self-glorifying content that Breivik has promoted himself with, simply because he had the foreknowledge of the attacks and got his info out there first. If anything, this particular detail seems more relevant to his page than it does to this one. Snow (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it belongs in the article. DES (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance here is that now we know what to look for, if he turns up for trial in this uniform etc. and we want to find revealing sources. Thanks, DES, for cracking the code. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, the court will never allow him to stand trial in anything else than plain civilian clothing. DES (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in the lede?

Per WP:TERRORIST, and pending a judicial resolution to this case, do we really want to use the word "terrorism" in the lede? It seems a little tabloidy for me. --John (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word lede rather than lead also looks a bit tabloidy to me! - Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Lead_paragraph - Lede is a common and acceptable alternate spelling. Manning (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Terrorist" is the exact word used by mainstream (not only tabloid) media to describe the attacks. We are following the same convention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it should be easy to produce multiple reliable sources for this. I will go ahead and place a cn tag. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago I readded the word "terrorist", along with an inline citation for it. It appears that the citation was removed, then the word "terrorist" was removed since it was no longer cited. Sigh. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those incapable of calling this a terrorist act because no muslim is involved: see [4][5][6][7][8][9]--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 17:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I coded your references, but I don't think that I did it exactly right. I prefaced the citations with an HTML comment so that someone editing the page will maybe take a look. When the page is rendering, it seems to be adding extra characters in the reference section such as '[' and '|' for some reason. Other similar references don't seem to do that. I was using the "first1", "last1", "first2", "last2" format along with the corresponding "authorlink1" and "authorlink2" ... not sure what is going on. 174.21.161.136 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with John's revision. I think that we should go with the language that is being reported, which says "Terrorist." Several credible articles refer to it as such and I think that omitting the word "Terrorist," when it is in article titles, etc., and is censorship. That is what the mainstream news has been calling it for the better part of a week... at least until they figured out that the man wasn't a Muslim. While opinion is just that, the fact is that in the mainstream news, this event was widely referred to as a "Terrorist attack" especially when everyone thought it was someone of the Muslim religion behind it. One of those references details how the word "Terrorist" was automagically transformed into "Madman" when it was discovered that he was a white Christian and not a brown Muslim. Just for saving someone else the time to recode any of those references... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Norway_attacks&oldid=441938109 174.21.161.136 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 174.21. The number of sources (removed in this edit) clearly shows that the statements from WP:TERRORIST: "...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" applies here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both above me. A whole bunch of references from well acknowledged newspapers got removed in that edit, all citing it as a terrorist attack. Archive page 3 also has this very same discussion if it was a terrorist attack or not. ABB is currently charged with §147 a in the Norwegian crime law (unless they change the charge to "crimes against humanity" or "genocide" which gives room for a up to 30 years in prison). §147 can be found in Norwegian version here - http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19020522-010.html#map018 - and states (with perhaps some awkward English translation)
§ 147a. An offense as mentioned in §§ 148, 151 a, 151 b first paragraph ref. 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 ref. 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.
ABB has admitted to doing the physical acts. He has not admitted to the charge because he does not believe he did anything that should be punished (http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7724994), and the trial will probably not start for a another year. I don't know how it is defined in English, but for the Norwegian definition I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that at least the explosion and damage (§ 148) is not a terrorist attack in the law text. The mass shootings might be covered in section §231 and §233 combined with §147 b) So if for some weird reason terrorism is defined differently in English than in Norwegian, is it the Norwegian definition (since it happened in Norway) or the English definition that should be deciding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. Only the terminology employed by valid and appropriate sources can determine the content and format of the article. Though I thank you very kindly for providing that legal information as it valuable to us all the same and may even silence a few of the persistent voices here who keep trying to dictate the tone of the article based on personal opinion of what the legal situation is. I welcome anything that will cause them hold back on flooding this page further with personal arguments (not that I haven't been guilty of the same thing a time or two on this page) but I remind everyone that this is not a forum for discussing our personal perceptions of the event, nor even for providing cogent, logical, and well-thought-out arguments for why it is or is not terrorism. The article will reflect it as a terrorist attack because our sources overwhelmingly do the same. Snow (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of sympathy with this view, but I am deeply uneasy about calling it terrorism while the judicial process of a living person is ongoing. --John (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The living person can hang as far as I'm concerned... There may be a technical legal process to be gone through regarding guilt of one particular suspect, but there's no doubt that the 2011 Norway attacks were an act of terrorism. I know that's a vague and easily diluted term, but this is pretty close to a type specimen of it. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. More importantly (to our purposes here), the sources almost all designate the act as such. Clearly the majority here are agreed that this is the language employed by our sources and that it is terminology appropriate to the description of the event. This is as close as we're ever going to come to consensus on this issue. The language referring to the act as terrorist in nature stays and the people who keep unilateraly reverting it need to remember that Wikipedia content is not determined by their personal opinions or logic nor even by the consensus opinion and logic. It is formed by citing appropriate sources. And as matter of fact, what the sources say on the matter is so uniform and so unambiguously worded, I further put forth that the title of the article ought to be reverted to '2011 Norway Terrorist Attacks.' Can I get a vote? Oh, and removing valid sources from the page simply because they happen to disagree with your stance is completely inappropriate. If that persists, someone needs to get blocked, plain and simple. Snow (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I don't think I'd go so far as changing the title. "Brevity is the soul of wit and all that..." - no sense shoving in an unnecessary word just to make an argument, even if you're right. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, many of the removals of "terrorist" (and "extremist") have cited the guideline "Words to Avoid", or WP:WTA. I request that those people read the current title of the policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. And for those too lazy to click the link, this is from the relevant section of WP:WTA ('contentious labels'):
"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." (emphasis mine).
And from the header of the page:
"The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies — Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability" (again, emphasis mine).
Those guidelines exist mostly to help keep bias from creeping into articles, but it is not bias to accurately portray the content of appropriate sources, especially when those sources are so numerous and so uniform in how they define the subject. The use of the terms in question is completely consistent with WP:WTA and also, I do not think it is at all an exaggeration to say, required by WP:NPOV. On Wikipedia, avoiding labels that are sometimes viewed as contentious is, like most other factors, a subordinate consideration to the paramount and core principal of accurate representation of source materials. Snow (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is still no change, so a few more links in addition to those already provided:

Hmmm, I have just replaced terrorist with extremist because the cited reuters source used that word. If a source is found that explicitly applies the word terrorist to the man, please use it and reword and recite. Otherwise the phrases "terrorist attack" and "terrorism" appear supported by the cites used. It is possible the reuters changed its title: the wikipedia article has ""Man held after Norway attacks right-wing terrorist: report" but reuters now has "Man held after Norway attacks right-wing extremist: report". Google turns up many matches for the latter but only the wikipedia article has the former. However, I also found sources describing the man as terrorist (example: [11]). I suggest those be used if desired, as it might otherwise appear we are misattributing reuters. -84user (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian terrorist http://news.yahoo.com/christian-terrorist-norway-case-strikes-debate-181559379.html 66.188.228.180 (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate crime?

Would it be appropriate to categorise this into Category:Hate crimes? While I don't think it's being prosecuted as one, he does seem to have chosen his targets based on his hatred for their left-wing politics. Robofish (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Norwegian law employs this distinction. Regardless, mention (or inclusion in the category even) would require a valid course. Snow (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hate crimes are "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion." Political viewpoints aren't covered. SpeakFree (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Hate crime' usually infers a smaller event (a single victim). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting the manifesto as fact

Why is this article reporting the stories from the manifesto as fact? For example, the trip to Prague to buy weapons, which could be fiction for all we know... The only source is a Czech article which quotes the manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.22.103.129 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section "Reliance on Manifesto" above. In short, the manifesto is not so much being cited as fact as certain sources have cited it is as fact and the content of those sources has been replicated here. Unfortunately, those who doubt the veracity of the manifesto on various issues (and I do I count myself amongst them)cannot change this content without a contradicting source for support. As to that particular Prague issue, the source isn't exactly great, but I'd say it barely passes muster. Remember, it's not out job here to decide the facts, but to report on the facts as they have been represented in valid sources. I submit to you that if these elements rub you the wrong way, there must be sources out there digging into the manifesto's claims. Go find them and I doubt there will be many people here who will oppose their being used to remove certain suspicious claims (depending on the all-important quality of the sources, of course!) Snow (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem with the source? Apart the fact it relies on manifesto, is it the fact, that it is not an English-language source? Unfortunately it is the reality that newspapermen tend to be centered more around what is close to them. So for the Czech part, the Czech sources are the best, for the investigation relating to his Polish chemistry delivery-man, the Polish sources are the best. Right now the Czech security service was asked by the Norwegian to look into his Czech trip, so there may be some reality-check to his manifesto claims soon (although I personally doubt they will be able to find anything, there are dozens of thousands of tourists every year doing what Breivik did, i.e. clubs & drugs & hookers,in Prague. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breiwik uses the Benes Decrees by way of which 3 million Sudeten Germans were expelled from the Czech Republic as a weapon to get rid of Muslims from Europe. He cites Wikipedia. Whoever has had a look into the German or English Wikipedia to get information about the expulsion of Germans gets horrified about the aggression and historical distortion against the victims there.--92.228.176.129 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What historical distortion do you have in mind?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinion unrelated to the improvement of the article

Beneš decrees and Wikipedia

This is a very interesting topic, because we know that Breivik's thinking was influenced by Wikipedia. Eventually we're going to ask whether racial biases reflected here had any influence on him - and this would seem to be a good case, perhaps the best case, to examine that.

From Brevik's manifesto - repeated word for word on page 523 and 725:

"It is possible that those Western countries where the infidels are strong enough will copy the Benes Decrees from Czechoslovakia in 1946, when most of the so-called Sudeten Germans, some 3.5 million people, had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth column without any loyalty to the state. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land. As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has demonstrated, there is a much better case for a Benes Decree for parts of the Muslim population in the West now than there ever was for the Sudeten Germans."

From Wikipedia (He references [12] on page 759; the first paragraph is only in the Feb 26 versions):

Some [which?] of the decrees concerned the expropriation of the property of wartime traitors and collaborators accused of treason, but were applied to Germans and Hungarians collectively. (In 1948 such provisions were cancelled for the Hungarians.) This was then used to confiscate their property and expel around 90% of the ethnic German population of Czechoslovakia.
The Germans were collectively accused of having supported the Nazis (through the Sudeten German Party– a political party led by Konrad Henlein)– and the Third Reich's annexation of the German-populated Czech borderland in 1938. Almost every decree explicitly stated that the sanctions did not apply to anti-fascists, though the term anti-fascist was not explicitly defined. Some 250,000 Germans, some anti-fascists and others judged people crucial for industries, remained in Czechoslovakia. Many of the anti-fascists of German native language emigrated under a special agreement stipulated by Alois Ullmann."ref"
The "ref" is: Finally Social Democrats of German native language, 9,165 of them had suffered in Nazi concentration camps and jails, 13,536 experienced other persecutions by Nazis, and their relatives were spared the harshest atrocities, by interning them in separate special camps. 73,125 were deported under preferential circumstances, of course expropriated, a mere 45,779 of them was allowed to take at least their chattel.

Perhaps the more interesting fact from Breivik's point of view is the longer description in the article that the Benes decrees were never reversed, and remain a sticking point for efforts to guarantee human rights in Europe to this day.

Now looking at this, I don't think Wikipedia was particularly biased here; if anything it seems to my reading to favor the other side a little. My feeling is that Wikipedia is no more pro-Breivik than the maker of Glock handguns; he simply chose Wikipedia as a quality tool for his purposes. It is clear how he would view this as a model - he's viewing Muslims in Norway, like Germans in Czechoslovakia, as a "fifth column"; in fact, his proposal even allows for a sort of "good Muslim" he would accept keeping under onerous terms, sort of like the "anti-fascist Germans". Wnt (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Heroes

Is there any room for reporting on the german tourist and the married couple who saved 30 and 40, respectively, teens via boat rescue? Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Norway_attacks&oldid=442718868"