Jump to content

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.81.20.149 (talk) at 14:46, 11 June 2012 (→‎Zionism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Glock 34

He used a glock 34, not 17. Source: http://bildr.no/view/1171810 Capture from trial on norwegian national television, on internett tv on ther site www.nrk.no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.58.90 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Can someone with editing privileges revert the statement "Norwegian nationalism" to "white nationalism" in the introduction section? I don't know who changed it, or why that person has editing privileges and I don't, but we discussed this at length earlier. Furthermore, of the many alternative titles to the sentiments we were trying to capture with the label "white nationalist," Norwegian nationalist makes the least amount of sense, and stinks somewhat of sympathizing euphemism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chainswede (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the source cited clearly says 'Hvit nasjonalist'(White nationalist), I've changed it back. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can he still be called a terrorist?

YES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.113.176 (talk) 20:35‎, 17. April 2012 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1])
§ 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)[reply]
Just because the Norwegian court doesn't legally define him as a terrorist doesn't mean that he isn't one as defined by international law. Shabeki (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many sane terrorists do you know of? Shabeki (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we're not even allowed to call Osama bin Laden a terrorist (check the first FAQ on the talk page: Talk:Osama bin Laden). And neither of the sources after the word "terrorist" in the lead actually say that he's a terrorist. Removing this now, yes? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

INFORMATION TO ALL OF THE ABOVE: A new committee of psychiatrists have now concluded that he is not a paranoid schizophreniac. They have concluded that he's an extreme narcissist and has antisocial personality disorder but that his mental state at the time of the terrorist acts makes sentencing him to jail legal afterall (for Norwegian readers: http://www.nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.8067009!Pressemelding%20sakkyndigrapport.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.251.126 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he is nuts doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.113.176 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling him as terrorist brings no added informational value at this moment. Removing. 120.126.47.1 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the current version to make it more neutral (as was stated in the edit comment) looks a bit odd. «[...] accused mass murderer and the confessed perpetrator [...]» It looks a bit contradictory. -Laniala (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 'Psychiatric evaluation' references

User User:Kiwi128 (talk) added template Ref improve section (section needs additional cites for verification). I fail to see what information isn't properly referenced, perhaps someone else can advice? Charlie (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is completely unsourced. SilverserenC 08:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not. The information originates from the forensic expert report, which is referenced in the 1st paragraph (currently ref. No. 69). Perhaps this ref. should be added to the 2nd paragraph too? Charlie (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You can't just make the readers assume that the forensic report applies to this paragraph. Most likely, they're going to assume the same thing I did, that it's not referenced. SilverserenC 09:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for helping, Silver. Charlie (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it is relevant, but the tabloid newspaper Verdens Gang released almost the whole psychiatric evaluations, just censoring out vitness' names and some family information: [2] (the text is in Norwegian) -Laniala (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excellent and reliable article based on Norwegian sources that coulld be used: http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/a-pre-trial-profile-of-anders-behring-breivik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.126.242 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he not called "Christian terrorist"?

I think the fact that every little nuthead with a Muslim/Jewish background is called Islamist, extreme Zionist, etc., but Breivik is not mentioned as a CHRISTIAN terrorist or at least categorised as such is not only pretentious and phony, but typical of Western, white people, who have always been comfortable calling "them" terrorists, but "us" freedom-fighters or - in the present case - psychologically unstable blablabla. There are a number of reasons to include the term "Christian", let me list two:

1. Breivik's manifesto clearly shows that he is an informed Christian, who furthermore categorises the world according to (although not solely) religious denominations. Everyone who has really read his manifesto cannot deny that he justifies a great deal of his motivation with Christianity. It is obvious as daylight.

2. So, you guys are surprised that he is called "mentally unstable" and even think about changing the "terrorist" label? Well, lemme tell ya somethin', folks: terrorists in general could be categorised as mentally unstable, psychotic, etc., if you really think about it. Do you think, ceteris paribus, that the court in Norway would not call Bin Laden "mentally unstable"? (Or Hitler for that matter?) Of course they would! (But only if in our example, Bin Laden was white and European/American, for we all know that if you're a Muslim (or Jew in the past), i.e. a "darkie", it's your culture, your breed, you dirty terrorist mf you, but if you're a white Christian, you simply must be mentally ill, for it is impossible that a white Christian European would kill other Europeans! Of course, to kill hundreds of thousands darkies by just bombing them is okay...).

So, you may not like me or my style or the way I don't like you guys, but you cannot deny that my arguments are sound and the things that I pointed out above are valid objections that need to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.45.172 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Find a source that calls him a Christian terrorist, add it and we're done. Because without a source, it would count as "original research", even if it's obvious. Weird but true. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed in length before. [3][4][5][6][7] He considered himself a Christian (this has been discussed in length), and plenty of reliable sources describe him as a terrorist (this has been discussed in length too). I think however one of the points in the previous discussions is that he can be both a Christian and a terrorist separately, without being a "Christian terrorist" as a combined word. So as Mythic Writerlord wrote just above, if you can't find reliable sources that describe him has a "Christian terrorist" somebody that disagree to either of those words being used, is probably going to revert it at some point or another. -Laniala (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's not like there aren't sources. Terrorism expert Juergensmeyer among others. It's even cited in the article already. The question isn't "are there sources." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTiC)
So there are sources so why is Breivik not described as a Christian terrorist in this article then? Could it be that Christian editors are the ones who keep reverting it using the BS "no true Scotsman" argument of Christianity and terrorism being incompatible? If we allow this logic next thing you know, someone will remove the Islamic terrorist description from Bin Laden's page with exactly the same arguments. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Because Breivik isnt religios, he calls himself aCultural Christian, Richard Dawkins calls himself Cultural Christian too, you can be it without to be faithful. So he cant be an Fundamentalist. I think his only a singular offender.--95.114.55.221 (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd to say that he does not claim to be a Christian and and act like a terrorist, given the crusader imagery etc. Since we have WP:RS for "Christian terrorist", I would suggest the editors who care keep inserting that category and adding it to the description in the lead and ask for arbitration if... other nutjobs editors are determined for this obvious and referenced label to be removed from the article. I don't care enough, even if it the right thing to do. Obotlig (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention it?

When Breivik in December 2009 called for a Norwegian version of the English Defence League, he argued the need to counter left-wing radical groups like Blitz and SOS Rasisme that were "harassing" Norwegian cultural conservatives. Last week it was revealed that SOS Rasisme had in fact infiltrated the leadership of the NDL to the extent that it controlled the organization from its inception through March 2011 (See Norwegian Defence League#Leadership controlled by anti-racism activists). Is some mention of this latest development warranted in the present article? __meco (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a connection mentioned in reliable sources? In my view, they don't appear to be related at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that mentioning in this article that the NDL was in fact infiltrated by SOS Rasisme would be a breach of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH? __meco (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More that I just don't see the relevance of it in this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - not relevant. In any case, it seems to be assertion, rather than fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with Merah

A few newspaper features comparing the two killers Breivik and Mohammed Merah[8][9] (also) and positing them as polar opposites in an emerging violent conflict between Muslim immigrants and ethnic Europeans struggling to preserve their cultural identity might be worth integrating into this and other related articles. __meco (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"polar opposites in an emerging violent conflict between Muslim immigrants and ethnic Europeans struggling to preserve their cultural identity"? What? Can you cite a source that is saying that - none of the ones you give do - though I'd hardly describe any of them as mainstream. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, here's one more extrapolating the two killers. __meco (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this changed?

We had 3 pictures of him in 3 different outfits; why had this been changed? It seems that many criminals do not have their faces on wikipedia. Is this always the case?140.198.45.72 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was mostly to do with copyright issues, though there isn't really much need for multiple pictures, and the ones of him posing in uniforms etc weren't exactly ideal: we shouldn't be projecting his self-image as some sort of 'soldier'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's because of copyright issues. And I agree with the above, we shouldn't continue with the self-promoting of Breivik as soldier, especially when he never served a single day in the military. The general deletion argument was that Facebook pictures generally are not free (as defined by Commons - which requires the picture to be able to be used commercially and be able to be modified in any way you like), and these Facebook pictures were also probably taken by a professional photographer. The license Breivik used on the compendium and the pictures in it is dubious and unclear, as it allows you to distribute only if you are a European. Breivik specifically mentions modification of only certain chunks of text, he does not mention you are allowed to modify (his) pictures. And to top it off, Breivik are not allowed to give away permissions on material he himself does not own (like the professionally taken Facebook pictures). Majority of the text and pictures in the compendium are copied and pasted from other authors, and Breivik himself notes he did not have permission to use their material. So in a nutshell copyright violation is why all his pictures were deleted. You can find the deletion discussions here [10]. A couple of people have tried to get them undeleted but all have failed.
Anyway, on a general note it is difficult to take a picture with a free license that is accepted on Commons when the person/criminal is either in jail for a very long time, or killed himself in the very same action that made him "famous".
When it comes to Breivik you have a very minor chance at taking a picture of him when he is being transported from the jail to the court room. If you have a press accreditation you also have a chance to take a picture in the minutes before and after the court trial as long as Breivik himself allows you to do it, which he first allowed on his last remand hearing a month or so ago. (Norwegian law prohibits taking pictures (and sound/video recordings) of an accused person while inside the court building as long as he/she does not agree to it before the court trial starts.) So far every picture taken of him is by professional photographers that do it for a living and/or are hired by commercial newspapers/broadcasters. -Laniala (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breivik was a wikipedian

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/breivik-tros-ligga-bakom-artiklar-i-norska-wikipedia

I don´t know if this have been mentioned before, but according to this swedish article, Breivik (may have) edited norweigian Wikipedia, and mentioned Wikipedia in his manifesto ("Wikipedia should not be underestimated as the primary source to create "established truths"", my translation). Probably not worth mentioning in the article, but the source is RS, and it´s interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not go directly to the source to get a better idea what the interview was actually about? http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/rogaland/1.8045907 Swedish and Norwegian are not that different. -Laniala (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this interview is also discussed on the no-wiki [11] and [12]. -Laniala (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a note about this in the article. __meco (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just goes to show that nutters edit Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.7.227 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant text should be merged into the trial article

With the newly created Trial of Anders Behring Breivik article, relevant text from the "Arrest and preparations for trial" section as well as its subsection "Psychiatric evaluation", should be merged into this article, leaving brief summaries in the present article. __meco (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful publications on ABB:

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/a-pre-trial-profile-of-anders-behring-breivik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.126.242 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a scientific publication. I don't immediately see that this is useful for the present article. __meco (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC) (Section header has been changed, removing the word scientific. __meco (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Weapons Used: Include Benelli Shotgun.

I believe the article and/or the upper right-hand side box (the background information) should include the fact that he had with him (in his vehicle) a Benelli shotgun. He did not use the shotgun on the island, but seeing as how it was a part of his arsenal, I believe it is of note. I do not believe I can add this information, seeing as how the article is locked. LogicalCreator (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why a 'terrorist'?

It's like saying the Twin Towers collapsed under their own weight when anyone with a degree in Science knows it must have been a bomb that caused it.

I have a degree in science so your statement is false. --Javaweb (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

By all means call him a suspected mass murderer but please don't call him a terrorist until proven guilty. JCMullen (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has said wanted to terrorize Norway. In fact, he said he wanted to wear a swastika to add to the terror but felt it would undercut the rest of his message. He says he copied Al Quaeda tactics.[1] He has admitted to the bombing as well as the massacre plus there are no reliable sources that say otherwise. Whatever your opinion of 9-11, it does not apply here. --Javaweb (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

Influence of Wikipedia section

Breivik has just testified that Wikipdia was the greatest influence on the development of his ideology and I think its important that Wikipedia acknowledges its role. Unfortunately there is a policy WP:SELF that tends to prevent that kind of acknowledgement. Can I ask that on least this occasion its role is adequately archived?

There should also be a section on Breivik's game playing. It emerged yesterday that he spent a whole year playing the game World of Warcraft and that would certainly seem to suggest he was addicted. It's rather similar in many ways with Wikipedia. There are editors who have made 100,000 edits or more. I don't want to encourage original research, but are there any RS out there addressing whether Breivik had an account with Wikipedia and what he posted? That would be also need to be acknowledged I think. JCMullen (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have mention of Breivik's connection to Wikipedia and its importance in his view. If he has elaborated on this in the trial, I'm sure something can be added to the existing text with adequate sourcing. If the name of his account should emerge I hope someone will notify an administrator asap so it can be locked down to prevent vandalism. __meco (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see that. Apologies. I didn't notice, though I did know the content. However what's emerged today, if I understand the news reports correctly, is that Breivik has now said that it was Wikipedia itself that was the most important influence on forming his ideology, not just merely propagating it. As soon as there are good secondary sources, that should be included in the article.
I had a look at the link you gave but it wasn't very informative. If Breivik's account has been identified, why hasn't that been dissected? I mean it could be locked down but it should still be available for discussion. I would especially like to see how his contributions were received by the community. If they were extreme for example were they ever blocked? That would be interesting. JCMullen (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that the leadership cabal of the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia as decided to withhold the user name of Breivik. __meco (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is already a small mention of this in a section above Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Breivik was a wikipedian. That section was regarding an interview that one of the Norwegian Wikimedia people had, and it can be found (in Norwegian)here. The contents did create a discussion on no-Torget (a variant of the Village pump) [13] and [14]. Beyond what was mentioned in the interview I think maybe you have to ask on the Norwegian WP if anyone are able and/or willing to give more information.
If it is about what Breivik actually read, he did mention mostly religion articles on en-WP, asided from paper and electronic books, but he couldn't or wouldn't specify more specifically when the prosecutor asked him to mention the titles of some of what he read.
As for Breivik's WoW gaming I don't know more than was mentioned on the first day in court, which wasn't much. :) -Laniala (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The point I was moving to was that in fact Wikipedia in fact has taken on some of the characteristics of a gaming community. One of its most powerful administrators, MuZemike, a shadowy anoymous figure entrusted with check sum rights giving him arguably more direct power than the CIA in his ability to invade our privacy, is known to have just such a backgound. There are others. MuZemike himself is clearly an addict. I doubt he sleeps properly. To give you a directly topical example of the sort of thing he does, MuZemike has just blocked the proxy in Russia I was posting from (I have to be extremely careful where I post from), some hassle with another user it seems. I have to post this now from a proxy in Romania and I don't doubt that if I return, that will be blocked too.
I do hope all this gets properly debated eventually. I shall look for the secondary sources we need. JCMullen (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting information, but I find it problematic for several reasons. First, you are presenting accusations about a Wikipedian whom I am not acquainted with and in a tone that may be inappropriate, including ad hominem content. Then you are presenting it on a page that is definitely not the right place to discuss improprieties among Wikipedia stewards or other trusted Wikipedians. I have close to 40,000 edits on this Wikipedia but I have no idea what "check sum rights" entail. I'm immediately at a loss about where would be the best place on this Wikipedia to address such issues. As for externally, I would think the Wikipedia Review or some such site might be able to advise you on how best to proceed with this. __meco (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Meco. Romania still good ;). That thing a few trusted admins do to find your IP and editing patterns and cast you into the eternal fires. Can't be bothered to look up what it's called. Of course you're being disingenuous to claim you don't what I'm talking about. That's not a personal attack, an accusation or anything else then a rhetorical device to counter the one you just employed (can't be bothered to look those up either).
Some guy who styles himself SpringtimeForHitler88 (don't count on it being vacant) posts suggesting uncle Adolf was a kindly old geezer who was basically misunderstood, Paris68 (ditto) denounces him, following thereupon you can be quite sure there will be a dozen wikipedians with 40,000 edits plus and counting defending 88. That's basically the problem we are talking here.
However I shall cease and desist. Nothing here. Best. JCMullen (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please feel free to add it. Pessimist2006 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He also said he was influenced by serbian nationalists. This should also be mentioned. --212.144.20.132 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism

I urge you to delete the suggestion that Breivik's manifesto supports Zionism. Seeing as Breivik is a white supremacist and his writings show no understanding of zionism, it is hard to see how he should sympathise with the plight of the Jewish people. It is at the very least controversial, but most likely an insidious accusation to mention zionism it in the same sentence as right-wing populism, Islamophobia, and anti-feminism. This politicised comparison intends to defame Zionism by linking it to a vicious white supremacist killer is in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.176.247 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breivik is not racist (Islam is not a race, nor are women a race) and thus by definition not a white supremacist. He is a far-right terrorist/revolutionary/nutjob (select your viewpoint) and a pro-zionist. This is fact. We can't change facts you don't like, sorry. 74.15.139.32 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree, Breivik is definitely not a white supremacist, which is a US-centric term not very relevant in Norway anyway. He is primarily an Islamophobe. Support for Israel plays a major role in his worldview. In his manifesto, he describes his main goal as "A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now)". He was also a member of the Progress Party, the only party in Norway to declare itself as hardline pro-Israel while all the other parties take a nuanced or critical approach to Israel. He also wrote for the website document.no, a hard right website known for its support for Israel and anti-Muslim commentary. JonFlaune (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important to distinguish Breivik's views from other European far-right movements, many of which are anti-Semetic and race-based. However, it might be appropriate to show that he advocates a homeland for Muslims just like he advocates homelands for Jews, Hindus, Japanese, and Norwegians. He is against Muslims in "his country" and against Europeans in theirs. He has this obsession with mono-cultures. This would explain his pro-Zionism. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Breivik is a nationalist. He believes every nation needs a home, no matter what. He isn't an Islamophobe per se (although he definitively dislikes Islam) he just doesn't want it in the Christian world. In the end of the day, he openly admitted to thinking of using Al Qaeda tactics. An Islamophobe would never admit that. That is why he attacked what he called "traitors" and "cultural marxists" and not muslims like most would expect to 65.92.6.32 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • His fews aren't that "right wing extremist" either. What he says isn't "extreme" that only the 5% on the extreme right would share it. It's pretty close to the center. Although many wouldn't openly say it, if they'd be honest, they'd agree with him on his stance on muslims, immigration, repopulation of Norway, multiculturalism, etc. --41.151.80.131 (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree, his views on many things isn't really the view of an extreme minority. The problems that he highlight regarding islam in non-Muslim countries such a Norway is agreed upon by many, if not the majority of the population in Europe (and elsewhere i guess). However, his ciminal and horrible actions is what clearly makes him an extremist.

"Alma mater"

Should the name of his high school really be included among only three other kinds of background facts?

I'll make my case: 1) Breivik dropped out. He never graduated. 2) Breivik was absent for much of the schoolyear before dropping out. 3) Breivik's high school education has, in the wake of July 22nd, only been mentioned when making timelines of his life. It has never been seen as, nor suggested to have been, a place that was influential in shifting his opinions towards the extreme right. 4) The fact that he went to the Oslo Commerce School is not mentioned in the info box in the Norwegian article about him; his education is listed only as "high school". The underlines my point that what high school he went to has been regarded as completely irrelevant. 5) Oslo Commerce School was not the only high school he attended. He attended Frogner High School as well, before switching to Oslo Commerce School. 6) Oslo Commerce School is already mentioned twice in the article anyway, while no other schools, even high schools, are listed in the information box.

When one obviously has chosen to include few background facts in the information box, I believe making the high school he dropped out of one of only four facts is odd, especially considering the before-mentioned circumstances. While I do agree that his education should be mentioned, the information box serves to provide short and essential information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.128.64 (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In Norway, someone's primary school or secondary school is not considered an "alma mater" that one lists in an infobox. JonFlaune (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

The psychiatrist Randi Rosenqvist has her name misspelled as Rosenquist.

 Done -Laniala (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Accused" mass murderer

I guess calling this guy an "accused mass murderer" is not quite like calling him an "alleged mass murderer," but the word "accused" still seems pretty absurd in this case. Will it finally be removed after he's found guilty and he's no longer "accused" and just a plain old mass murderer? ...And the first reference to his being a "narcissist" should have a Wikipedia link, as should the later reference to his having "narcissistic personality disorder." (Vbzrserrghbdfb (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Both narcissist references are now wiki-linked . --Javaweb (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]
Like I added in the terrorist discussion at the top, my opinion on the current version to make it more neutral (as was stated in the edit comment) looks a bit odd. «[...] accused mass murderer and the confessed perpetrator [...]» I think it looks a bit self-contradictory. And it's not technically correct either because he is accused terrorist, not accused mass murderer. He has confessed to the killings/murders, he as not confessed to being a terrorist. -Laniala (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breivik IS a mass murderer. He admitted so himself. Even if we assume his defense is 100% correct and he did what he did in complete self defense, he still did a mass murder, in self defense. If there is an alleged, it should be in terrorist, not mass murderer.

Maybe to make it more neutral in this case, change "murderer" to "killer" (or whichever term rings a better bell in your opinion) Arathian (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're trying to do the best neutral thing here, but his refusal to accept the label "murderer" is based on the conception that Norway have no right to judge him, that it is an invalid nation, and that he is at war with Norway. That's a POV that infinitesimally few adher to. We don't need to put undue weight upon such a POV. He is beyond reasonable doubt a Norwegian mass murderer accused of terrorism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The shooter is only well known because he killed scores of unarmed teenagers and bombed a building. In Wikipedia, he is a murderer only when the Norway legal system says he is. The trial will end. If and when he is found guilty, "murderer" will be correct. Meanwhile, is there a concise phrase for someone that massacres scores of unarmed kids? --Javaweb (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

Important information about his adolescence

In the opinion article "Sint ung mann" by NRK 3 copywriter Sturla Haugsgjerd, who grew up in the same area as Breivik and who has, apparently, interviewed a number of Breivik's adolescent friends, a lot of interesting insights into Anders Behring Breivik's youth rebellious period is given, with several new pieces of information emerging as well, such as Breivik at times speaking with a Pakistani accent. Due to its format this article is not a reliable source, but I would think some of the information may surface in other media reports, and if so we could use that to amend the present article. __meco (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galtung's comments on the attacks

I've balanced the way Galtung's comments have been represented in the article, but really to include the reprehensible, racist comments at all seems a breach of WP:UNDUE. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breivik's alleged Zionism was discussed (see above #18) and there's a question of its importance. When a major pillar of the Norwegian establishment sees its importance as sinister that is telling us something. But perhaps you're right that this isn't about Breivik but Galtung. What do other editors think? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That someone with a hatred of Islam feels an affinity for Israel is one thing, and it's worth recording here. Including a madcap unsupported opinion from a Norwegian academic insinuating that "Jews" had some role in the attacks is just wrong. --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see spurious references to the “Tea Party”, Vladimir Putin, English Defense League, Daniel Pipes, “Christian fundamentalism”, “Lionheart”, and others. The article has claims or insinuations of associations and influence that are questionable. Yet, they are repeated in the media, discussed, and sometimes dismissed. Why exclude this example which was published in a respectable newspaper about one of Norway’s most revered academics. Of course, it should be dismissed as bunk (with references to sources). If we are going to raise the bar for “undue” consideration, we might want to reconsider many of the rumors and light-weighted references to other groups and individuals. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they're weighty claims, great. If they're lightweight, based on one person's racism, UNDUE trumps your OTHERSTUFF argument. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are all undue. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So remove them all. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS That one has "hatred of Islam" and would therefore feel "affinity for Israel" is itself a worrisome statement. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the mind of someone inclined to mass murder of innocent people, I can understand the association: My enemy's enemy, etc. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's original research.
I was one who supported the insertion of his support for Zionism (see Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Zionism) but now I believe I was mistaken. I saw his support for Zionism as support for nationalist cultures or what some call monocultures. He also admires Japan and Korea for this reason. It didn't occur to me that his support for Zionism had something to do with his hatred of Islam. After all, Israel and its Jews aren't anti-Islam nor do they consider Islam the enemy as you seem to think!!! Now that I notice that Zionism is part of a section on "Islamophobia and Zionism" I withdraw my support for the insertion of Zionism. I believe we should pull both Zionism and Prof Galtung's conspiracy theory out simultaneously. And we should remove "Zionism" from the section title. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is allowed to be original research. Material on Wikipedia isn't. Remove it with my blessing, it's nonsense from a solitary racist. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not going to remove his well sourced support for zionism (which is not something "inserted", but somethat that has been present in the stable version of the article since its creation more or less) because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This has been discussed ad nauseam in the archives of this talk page and the consensus is to include it. No other fact in the entire article is better sourced than this particular issue, including sources demonstrating its notability. There are 30 additional sources or so, including sources demonstrating it to be significant, found in the archives. JonFlaune (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism is discussed in the Manifesto section. The Jerusalem Post article is about the Manifesto. The JPost article doesn't argue that his Zionism derives from his Islamophobia but describes his Zionism and nationalism in the same breath. The section "Islamophobia and Zionism" of our article suggests that these two positions go together. This is an attack on Zionism that clearly is not in the Jerusalem Post article. I suggest that Zionism be removed from the "Religion and Political Views" section. Why is Zionism the only political view discussed in that section? His political views are far more extensive and they are discussed in many articles.
In summary, Zionism is well represented in our article and discussed elsewhere. The insinuation that Zionism is derived from Islamophobia is pure WP:POV and should be removed from the religion section. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jason and Dweller, and I therefore removed "Zionism" from the "Religion and Political Views" once again. - Ankimai (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK we remove the editnotice about the manifesto now?

Has the time ripened for removing the editnotice about treating Breivik's manifesto as a primary source and similarly removing the header banner saying the same from the talk page? Or do people expect this will lead to unwanted edits? I personally doubt that at this point. __meco (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AB Breivik bilde 1468 lrg.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Just for information if anyone actually cares. The current image of Breivik in this article, File:AB Breivik bilde 1468 lrg.jpg, has been nominated for deletion (to conform with the premises given at the image upload time). The entry is here (you might have to scroll a bit). I assume there is no bot like Commonsbot since the image isn't on Commons. Anyway, this is just for information if you want to keep the picture. Personally I don't care if I don't see his face. -Laniala (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shooter video games

Who honestly wrote this: "used to play first person shoooter games such as Modern Warfare 2 and World of Warcraft". World of warcraft is not a first person shooter, any 5 year old can tell you that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.182.77 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest this be worded? __meco (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Warfare 2 is a first person shooter (FPS) however World of Warcraft is a Fantasy Mass Multiplayer Online Roleplay Game (FMMORPG), it really should be classified as, maybe.
"Video Games"
"used to play games such as Modern Warfare 2 and World of Warcraft..."
Tesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teshiburu (talk • contribs) 07:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes per your suggestion. __meco (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still in a section titled "Shooter video games"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.182.77 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't get that there were two parts to your suggestion. I've changed the section title also. __meco (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should he have his own page?

I thought Wikipedia's policy was to not give separate pages to people who are only known for one act/event. This is why Casey Anthony doesn't have her own page. Searching for her redirects you to the "death of Caylee Anthony" page. Should entering Breivik's name not just redirect you to the "2011 Norway Attacks" page?

Why should this asshole get his own page and bio and everything? It's just another platform...but the main reason he shouldn't have his own page is because of Wikipedia's policy (as far as I understand it). Thanks. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.224.170 (talk) 00:51, May 24, 2012‎ (UTC)

You are referring to WP:ONEEVENT. If you look at the top of this page you will see that this article was nominated for deletion the day after the July 22 attacks. I think also if you read the short section that I have linked to you will realize that having this article is perfectly justified in relation to Wikipedia policies. __meco (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity In the First Line

Could someone with editing priveleges remove the "Cowardly Murdering Nazi Shitstain" line from the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.144 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has fixed it. __meco (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 8 edits re: psychiatric evaluation

I don't think Malt's testimony should be included in the psychiatric evaluation section since this was a private prosecution witness who testified that he was not actually giving a diagnosis. He was commenting on aspects of the first two psychiatric reports and giving possible alternative avenues for diagnostic exploration. Malt testified that he has not spoken to or examined Breivik. I also think it's improper to include Breivik in the category of persons with Asperger's. He has not been given that diagnosis. Minor4th 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example see this article: [15] wherein it is reported that Malt testified that he is not making a final diagnosis of Breivik and only giving context to the differences between the two earlier reports. Minor4th 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Breivik describes hunting down panicked teens". CBS News. AP. April 20, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&oldid=497067649"