Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

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)

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

"Norwegian nationalist" makes perfect sense seeing as how he is an advocate of Norway as a state for ethnic Norwegians, not "white" people. There is a difference between "white" and "Norwegian" and Breivik clearly is concerned more with the latter. Perhaps you think that labeling him a "Norwegian nationalist" is a sympathetic euphemism, but I think labeling him a "white nationalist" is just an attempt to roll him into the the "white supremacist", "Neo-Nazi" category with all of its associations. Perhaps you don't realize that "nation" actually means a people, or ethnic group. --ElkanahTingley (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the source for "white nationalist" and come to the conclusion that it is a sub-standard source without corroboration. In fact, we have a contradiction for this label elsewhere in the article. I have therefore removed the label and also other text referenced from the same source, a U.S. PhD student. __meco (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that "white nationalism" was removed, but I have my doubts about the use of "ultranationalism" as well. I don't think that had been there before. First, later on in the article we have Thomas Hegghammer saying that he's not an "ultranationalist." Additionally, I can't find the term being used in the Washington Post article source. The "ultranationalism" link sends you to the paragraph definition, most of which sounds nothing like what Breivik believed in. Authoritarianism, demagoguery of leadership, tight control over business, genocide do not fit the bill for Breivik. That sounds a lot like fascism and National Socialism, both of which Breivik was vehemently opposed to. The only overlap is reduction or stoppage of immigration and deportation of foreigners. Broadly speaking, "ethnic nationalism" is a much better fit. "Norwegian nationalism" is more specific. I think the reluctance to label him a "Norwegian nationalist" is due to a confusion between "civic nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism." True "nations" are ethnic groups and the original meaning of "nationalism" was "ethnic nationalism." I think people are reluctant to say he's a "Norwegian nationalist" because they think it strips the focus away from the fact that he was concerned with ethnicity and culture, and not simply "the state" of Norway. "Norwegian ethno-nationalist"? It's actually redundant. --ElkanahTingley (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, I read the Washington Post article from July 25, 2011 which was used to support the labels ultranationalism, right-wing populism and islamophobia. I couldn't find it mentioning any of the three. I wonder what is behind that. Perhaps sources have become mixed up in the editing process. In any case, I removed the first two but left islamophobia since that seems well established and uncontroversial, and I also removed the source from the article altogether since it was only used to reference information which it actually didn't mention. __meco (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@ElkanahTingley. Actually, "ethno-nationalist" wouldn't be redundant since the latin word "natio" can refer both to the greek "demos" as well as the greek "ethnos". In modern Europe, first Nationalists were Democrats (not neccessarily Republicans, and don't mix these terms up with the U.S.-parties) who refused imperial rule as well as Kleinstaaterei and proclaimed a (then often non existing) independent and unified nation state. It was later, when these nation states already had been established, when nationalist beliefs began to shift towards ethnically "clean" and homogeneous states. However, according to most of his writings, Breivik doesn't interest himself so much for the "purity of blood" (or does he? - I haven't read them all) but more for some kind of "purity of a monolithic christian culture". True? So maybe the right expression for that kinda standpoint still has to be found.--JakobvS (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

We don't remove sourced material simply because you don't like it. Good sources like the Jerusalem Post have demonstrated that zionism is an essential part of his worldview. JonFlaune (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed upon by many? Really? Got some proof?

By is own words, he was a supporter of the state of Israel and was against anti-semitism. He was a sick person, thats not the point but his far-right ideology is different from nazism and white supremacy groups. I can quote from the "Jerusalem Post" article: "In one passage, he lashes out at the Western media, which he accuses of unfairly focusing on the wrongdoing of Jews./ “Western Journalists again and again systematically ignore serious Muslim attacks and rather focus on the Jews,” he wrote./ Breivik also took a jab at leftwing Jews./ “Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us,” he continued./ “So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.”/ He also stated that Israel is the homeland for Jews largely due to the persecution suffered by Jews at the hands of Muslims, saying “if one acknowledges that Islam has always oppressed the Jews, one accepts that Israel was a necessary refuge for the Jews fleeing not only the European, but also the Islamic variety of anti- Judaism.”81.193.215.143 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is funny. You could just say that he oppose Islam and any multicultural involve with them. To refer it to "Zionism" just induce hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.141.191 (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is devolving into a discussion of the topic in general. Please take that elsewhere. this is not the place to share our personal views on what is and isn't mainstream, etc. This is specifically a place to suggest and discuss specific changes to the article.This, by policy, not a forum.204.65.34.237 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Images at Flickr

If we can't get photos about this person, why not use pictures like portraits? Here is some I found: http://www.flickr.com/photos/home_of_chaos/7262012920/ Egon Eagle (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not a freely licenced image. __meco (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But non-free images are permissable where it isn't possible to create a real one. And it will never be possible to create a free one of Breivik.--109.152.242.28 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why not. Of course obtaining photos of him is and will remain possible. He's not tucked away in a secret dungeon. __meco (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at Flickr and found these: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=anders+breivik&l=commderiv&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1 I know the photos with the red shirt is non-free. What choise do we have? Egon Eagle (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh wise non-anonymous Wikipedia editors

This--

"In it he lays out his worldview, which includes opposition to feminism,[30][31] Islamophobia, Zionism[26] and India's right-wing Hindu groups.[32]"

--makes it seem like he opposes Islamophobia, Zionism, India's righ..blah, blah, blah, when clearly that was not the intent. Could one of you registered Wikipedia users please add "and support for" in front of "Islamophobia" to clarify? This poor, unworthy of editing, anonymous user begs your majesties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.168.226 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. And registering is nothing special, really, just click here to create an account. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Nah, I prefer to have the "original" Wikipedia experience from the early 2000s when most people could edit most pages, registered or not. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.168.226 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They still can as a general rule. Some pages have added restrictions for specific reasons. __meco (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

2011_Norway_attacks#Czech_copycat

I have added 2011_Norway_attacks#Czech_copycat, I am not sure how to link it from this article, could someone do it? Thank you Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Understanding the sentence

When someone is sentenced to "forvaring" (containment) (see http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forvaring ), they receive a "time frame" (tidsramme) and a "minimum time" (minstetid). The maximum time frame is 21 years and the maximum minimum time is 10 years. A containment sentence can theoretically be extended indefinitely, as long as the convict is considered a danger to society. A containment sentence with a time frame of 21 years and a minimum time of 10 years is the maximum penalty in Norway and roughly equal to "life sentences" in other European countries. (a "life sentence" elsewhere usually means you serve 15-25 years). JonFlaune (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The translation of "forvaring" found in any judicial books is "preventive detention" or "preventive custody". Kriminalomsorgen uses "preventive detention" [1]. So, 21 years + 5 years + 5 years + 5 years + ... + 5 years, until dead because of old age or something else. Hekseuret (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting this translation. JonFlaune (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it's not quite correct that he was sentenced to "21 years in jail". If you get sentenced to preventive detention, you are formally sentenced to preventive detention with a time frame and a minimum time. The time frame is 21 years, but it doesn't mean you'll be in prison for 21 years, it could be less or it could be more. After the minimum time, he can be evaluated for a possible release. JonFlaune (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead

The lead is too long. It also gives the killer far too much of the kind of coverage he craved - almost bordering on a bizarre kind of justification. Those who have worked so much on this article might consider reducing some of it a little. Breivik was, after all, just another mass-murdering crank intent on getting his name in the media. BarbarellaTwo (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! The lead needs to be stripped down and yes, Anders is, just what you described.

"....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 15:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, 4 paragraphs is the recommended length per MOS, so the lead is geneally not too long. However, I've removed two sentences of hypothetical nature regarding what could happen if he were judged to be insane, as it seems unncessary to have this in the lead now. JonFlaune (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead is full of pov wording! "Terrorist" is a pov term and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. "Far right" is a pov term that should also not be used (and the meanings of "far right" or "far left" vary greatly from country to country). "Militant ideology" is also pov. Brevik’s manifesto was not "Islamophobia, support of Zionism and opposition to feminism" – that is just the opinion of certain commentators who have characterised its content thus. "Attrocities" is also pov. Meowy 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We base articles on what reliable sources say, not on your POV of what is POV. And if you think that the mass murder of 69 people - mostly teenagers - wasn't 'an atrocity', I suggest you take your deranged POV somewhere else - preferably where nobody has to see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And the above shows why the lead is so pov-filled - like many current event articles on Wikipedia it has become "owned" by a group of editors who are pumped-up with self-righteous indignation about the event. It is also my experience that said editors never have any actual connection to the subject, or any history of editing in the subject's general area before the specific current event enters the news. Meowy 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Self righteous?" Breivik MURDERED dozens of children. Any real human being with a soul would consider that an atrocity. Just leave, sicko, we don't need your trolling here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are heading rapidly towards a situation that merits a lengthy block for incivility. I suggest that you shut your mouth if this is all you can say. Meowy 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We base things on sources. Start writing for a newspaper, then get them to call him 'Steve' or a 'freedom fighter' or whatever you want him to be called, then when that is picked up by other RSs perhaps we will call him a 'Steve' or a 'freedom fighter'. Until then he remains what he is, a far right militant terrorist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "terrorist" from the intro section. My justification is the Wikipedia guideline at [2] 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. Meowy 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You are a POV-pusher trying to remove the sourced information describing the evil that Breivik has committed, and seem to want to excuse his actions. I'm willing to call you on your bluff, I won't shut up.

And did you miss the part saying "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"...? It's not contentious that Breivik was a terrorist. Take your Breivik-excusing and get out of here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by Enoch Powell?

In his speech today he stated: "These preventive attacks [by Breivik, Peter Mangs and others] prove that Enoch Powell is right and ethnic civil war is beginning," he told the court in his testimony. "He said 'rivers of blood will flow through our streets'. Unfortunately nobody listened to him." (Source). Can we add this? 79.97.154.238 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. What do others think? Do we have more references to Enoch Powell? __meco (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Telegraph describes this as a "rambling testimony", it would seem highly questionable to pick out references to particular individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda article?

I've already noted the overuse of pov terms in the article lead. There are alsos many worrying aspects about the body of the article. Why is there no content at all about the choice of the targets? Why is there no content at all about the political and social context of the events, and their specificity to Norway? Why is the content about the attacks reduced to a few sentences while the trial section given enormous coverage? An article about a person should be concentrate on the things that person has done or written about, not to things that were out of that person's immediate control (like, in this case, the trial). Meowy 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? You are describing an article about a mass murderer as 'propaganda'? On who's behalf? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of covert anti-mass-murder conspiracy involved in writing the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's upset that Breivik is described as a far-right terrorist. That's how the sources (rather accurately) describe him, so I have to conclude that the problem lies in Meowy's perceptions, not the article.

Meowy, the reason we don't focus on what he's written is because Breivik is terrible bigot, conspiracy theorist, and only barely sane; and so we instead go with what is written about Breivik. Most of those sources concluded he was far-right (seeing how he was a strong nationalist opposed to liberalism, socialism, communism, and multiculturalism, that's a pretty apt description) and a terrorist (he committed violent acts and threatened more to try to scare people into complying with his batshit ideology, that's terrorism). Most of the sources focus on the trial because the shooting was only one day, while the trial has gone on a long time. That's why the article is written the way it is, not because of some bias. Any perception of bias is your fault. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...committed violent acts and threatened more to try to scare people into complying with its batshit ideology" - sounds rather like an everyday example of the foreign policy of the United States of America. Which is why the phrase "terrorist" is so pov that it should not be used. On Wikipedia terrorisim can't be used to decribe the foreign policy of the United States, or the policy of individuals or groups (unless they call themselves by that term) no matter how many people call it exactly that. At the most, all we could have is a source that describing such policy as terroristic or such a person or organisation as a terrorist - and it would not be in the lead. Meowy 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Red herrings to continue to excuse Breivik. Go away, nasty person. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that terrorist shouldn't be used in the lede, and while the MoS does say "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", right after that it says "in which case use in-text attribution". I think following the MoS is especially important in the lede; perhaps it would help to use in-text attribution ("terrorist according to...") or perhaps clarify the wording to make it clearer that the individual was convicted for terrorism? - SudoGhost 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism

Anders Breivik was found guilty of both murder and terrorism; for instance, see this live coverage of the sentencing (which I had added to Trial of Anders Behring Breivik). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no wording in that article that says he was convicted of both "both murder and terrorism" - all it does is deccribe the act as a "terrorist attack". I have seen no source that says Breivik was convicted of "terrorism". Meowy 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And even if there was, it still does not justify the inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the lead. Even Osama bin Laden's article does not have the word "terrorist" in its lead - nor do any persons convicted of terrorist offenses through IRA involvement have the label "terrorist". "Terrorist" is ALWAYS a pov term. Meowy 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The "terrorist" label is clearly sourced inside the article. Breivik has been charged for acts of terrorism under Norwegian law and the court verdict found that he had ideas of fighting islamisation with terror. Add to that a few other reliably sourced instances of "terrorist/terrorism/terror" within the article. His own lawyer compared him to a "cynical terrorist" in his final defence plea. [3] De728631 (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The above is meaningless weasel. You have no source that says the court in Norway convicted Breivik of a "terrorist offense", or of "being a terrorist" (or any similar wording). And since "terrorist" is always a pov term, there are no articles on Wikipedia where persons convicted of "being a terrorist" are called a "terrorist" in the lead. If it is there, it is always deeper in the actual content and it is worded so that it is made clear that it is some body or organisation that is making the "terrorist" claim. Meowy 21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Er. The article directly states that he was charged with both murder and terrorism, and a part of the sentencing (15:53-16:08) goes into detail how his attacks indeed constitute terrorism. If that's not good enough for you, here's another one that states outright that he was found guilty of terrorism. As I had told you on your talk page, I won't object to rephrasing the article, but the fact that he was found guilty of terrorism needs to be mentioned in the article lead. (Aside: The Osama bin Laden article does in fact say in its lead that he was listed by the United States among the "Most Wanted Terrorists". It characterizes the al-Qaeda attacks as "mass-casualty attacks" rather than "terrorist attacks"; presumedly, it's because [arguably] not all their attacks constitute terrorism - many working definitions of terrorism require the attack to be directed at civilians.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think the Wikipedia should avoid being tabloidish in cases like this. Describe what happened, discuss the reactions and court decisions and whatnot, but I believe that few if any articles on people like Breivik make declarative "This person is a terrorist. The bin Laden articles doesn't, the Hassan Nasrallah articles doesn't last I was active at it. Be thoughtful and neutral for a change, everyone. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a source where Breivik's own lawyer describes him as a terrorist, and noted that the terrorist label is per many sources. There's plenty in the article to choose from should anyone think that we cannot have the lede summarize what the article already says. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is it "tabloidish" for the Timothy McVeigh article to call McVeigh a terrorist? Just like Breivik, he was convicted of terrorist offences and is, rightly IMHO, described as a terrorist in the article. Why is Breivik any different? The current "compromise" wording in the lead is ridiculous. He has been convicted of terrorist offences and is therefore a terrorist.--ukexpat (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the "compromise" phrasing; he is not just "noted" to be a terrorist. "He is a convicted mass murderer and and terrorist" means "he was found guilty of [mass] murder and terrorism", which is exactly the case; the introduction of this weasel term removes crucial information from the article lead. If the article needs to be rephrased, I would suggest something like "He is the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, convicted of murder and terrorism". (The disadvantage is that such a phrasing would remove the link to mass murderer - any idea?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mike Rosoft. The "compromise wording" is needlessly convoluted when it is straightforward and uncontroversial that he is a terrorist. The verdict and sentence explicitly convicts him of violating §147 of the criminal code (terrorism) and §233 (homicide). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The lede sentence could stand to be improved slightly, it feels like it flows a little awkwardly around the word 'convicted' and whether it attaches to 'mass murderer', 'terrorist' or both. What about the following: 'Anders Behring Breivik is a self-proclaimed political activist from Norway, convicted in 2012 of terrorism and mass murder'? (self-proclaimed optional) I think the formulation 'convicted of' is more clear than using 'convicted' as an adjective here, and less open to argument about whether he can appropriately be called a 'terrorist'. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 06:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The in-text attribution (stating who calls him a terrorist) is required if the terrorist descriptor is used, per WP:TERRORIST. It could certainly be worded better, but some sort of in-text attribution is needed. This has been discussed (to death) at similar pages, to the point that Talk:Osama bin Laden now has an FAQ section on the matter and Talk:Al-Qaeda has a note on the matter. - SudoGhost 07:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I see the guideline that SudoGhost is referring to, but I think the sentence is convoluted to the point of being misleading.
      • He is not merely "noted for being a terrorist by many", he is a terrorist which is really a very uncontroversial fact.
      • The "compromise wording" (in my opinion, false balance) makes it seem like there is a sizable number of people who think he is not a terrorist, but that view is a highly extreme WP:FRINGE opinion, and giving any significant weight to it is WP:UNDUE.
      • "Considered by the court" to be a terrorist when the lead already says that he was convicted of terrorism is spoonfeeding to the extreme.
      • All the media sources consistently refer to the attacks as terrorism and its perpetrator as a terrorist.
    • An inline citation for the word "terrorist" is fine and welcome, but I see no need to put the list of the people who consider him a terrorist in the text, if this is really needed it should be relegated to the footnotes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It's not inline citation, it's in-text attribution and it's not an optional thing; if the word terrorist is used in the article, it must say who is using that term, because the label of terrorist is not a universal one. The manual of style is there for a reason and even near-universally agreed upon labels of terrorism have to be given in-text attribution on articles, not least of all because "terrorist" doesn't have the same meaning everywhere; who gives this descriptor is as important as the descriptor itself. It doesn't have to be a "compromise wording" giving it any undue weight, but it still has to be there. - SudoGhost 08:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • How about "Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian convicted of mass murder and terrorism"? That in-text cites both the acts of "mass murder" and "terrorism". I am not gung-ho on saying he is a terrorist, but saying that he was convicted of terrorism is factual. I would remove "even his defense lawyer". The defense lawyer Lippestad was arguing for his clients best interests, that is, against committing him to psychiatric treatment, when he made his arguments. There were no comments along the line of "Look, even his defense lawyer thinks he's a terrorist!" anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I suggested something pretty close to that a few hours ago, I think it got overlooked. Stating that he is a terrorist in authoritative voice is controversial and doesn't gel with our guidelines. Stating that he was convicted of terrorism is a statement of fact without making direct assertions. It's a more appropriate way of saying what we need to say. – NULL ‹talk›
            ‹edits› 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If a court has convicted him of terrorism offences, and we have references to support that, he is a terrorist (just like McVeigh - I see no one has apparently taken issue with that).--ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works on Wikipedia, per the Manual of Style. If there are references to support him being convicted of terrorism offenses, that just means the article states that he was convicted of terrorism offenses. If there are numerous references that refer to him as terrorist (and there are), then that is also in the article, but in-text attribution is required; who uses this designation is as important as the designation itself, because what one person/country/group considers terrorism, another group would not. Even if the designation is near-universal, in-text attribution is needed. - SudoGhost 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made a new crack at it. The word "terrorist" is gone, I have replaced that with "convicted of terrorism", which is a matter of fact statement. That way, no one can accuse Wikipedia of calling Breivik a terrorist, but most readers will be able to connect the dots when it says he was convicted of terrorism by the court. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's perfect, I have no objections to it, because it's completely factual and doesn't run afoul of the MoS. - SudoGhost 16:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Will you be making a similar edit to Timothy McVeigh?--ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was convicted of "terrorism" as this Breivik character was. The "terrorist" label would come from countless reliable sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here I support the new (current) wording. It uses a more objective language that reads more appropriately for an encyclopaedia, to me. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

prague 2010

he tried to buy guns in aug 2010

check ur sources

2083 page 1422 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.184.84 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A note that appears when one tries to edit the article (sorry that you can't right now, bloody vandals keep causing problems):

Please note that the Anders Behring Breivik "manifesto" (2083 - A European Declaration of Independence) is considered a primary source, and its use must adhere to the relevant Wikipedia policy. In short, editors are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate his manifesto. Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source.

We would need a secondary source to establish that his attempt to purchase guns is noteworthy and not another lie by Breivik. Thanks for your help, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Too many sources in the lead

I'm not going to be following this article too closely, but on skimming I noticed that the lead is filled with sources. The lead shouldn't generally include sources because the material is sourced later in the article. If people are adamant in including the sources, it would probably be best to include them in hidden notes. Ryan Vesey 14:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have a Catch-22 here. I understand your objection, but if we remove sources from the lead, people will start challenging every statement there and demand a rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the hidden comment? as in <!--Source A--> Just use the ref names. Ryan Vesey 15:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to Wikipedia for creating more than one megabyte (or mebibyte, to be precise) of discussion about Anders Behring Breivik in a bit over one year and one month. JIP | Talk 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Breivik's actions, and the evaluations of what could make him do such things, have stirred up a lot of controversies in the midst of what was a very horrific and tragic event. The political aspects of the matter have also contributed to this. It is natural that people, including Wikipedia editors, have strong feelings about the subject matter and the way the article should describe it. There have been trolls here who want to push aa POV apologetic to Breivik or just stir up trouble, but for the most part I think the discussions have been in good faith. I prefer extensive talkpage discussion over edit warring with the article itself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Beware weasel words and POV.

The lede is full of pov wording. "Terrorist" is a pov term and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. "Far right" is a pov term that should also not be used. "Militant ideology" is also pov. Brevik’s manifesto was not "Islamophobia, support of Zionism and opposition to feminism" – that is just the opinion of certain commentators who have characterised its content thus. "Attrocities" is also pov and should be stricken from the article. Murder is also non-neutral. I will make the changes as proposed. Villano I (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And blocked along with his half dozen chums. Not who you thought it was though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Atrocities

I hope it's obvious that I'm not a sock. Nor am I a Breivik apologist, and I'm not about to argue that mass murder isn't an atrocity. However, troll or not, Meowy was right that "atrocity" is not a neutral term. According to Wiktionary, an atrocity is "an extremely cruel act; a horrid act of injustice". We are not here to pass judgement, and just because a vast majority of people agree that his crimes were horrendous, that doesn't make it objectively true.

The article only uses the word once, in the lead: "Breivik wrote that his main motive for the atrocities was to market his manifesto." This usage could easily be substituted for something else, like "his crimes", without affecting the meaning of the sentence in the slightest. Ordinarily, I'd boldly make the change myself, but I suspect such a move would not be well-received, so I'm making an attempt to reach a consensus beforehand. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The NPOV policy does warn against judgemental terms, but there is an important caveat. The text of the policy is:

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

Note the "clarity" caveat. Merely describing the methodical shooting of children as "crimes" doesn't provide sufficient emphasis to describe the how the population in general viewed what he did. "His main motive for his crimes was to market his manifesto" is an overly sympathetic sentence; it gives the impression that Breivik merely broke the law to get attention for his work. If what he did is an atrocity, and virtually everyone agrees that it was (hence: no "conflicting findings"), then there is no violation of the NPOV policy to describe it as such. "No passing of judgement" is sound, but not an absolute. Taken to its logical conclusion, we would have to replace all descriptions of "murder" with the more neutral "homicide". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"...it gives the impression that Breivik merely broke the law to get attention for his work" – Yes, that's what I thought that sentence was saying. It says the same thing no matter which word is used.

To kill so many people to market your manifesto is obviously deplorable; the reader is perfectly capable of making that judgement themselves. "Crime" isn't sympathetic, it's neutral. To me, "atrocities" makes the sentence overly accusative; it sounds like the article's trying to make a point – "Isn't it despicable that he did all this just to get attention?" I don't doubt the good faith of the people who wrote it, I'm just saying that's how it comes across to me, and doubtless to others. It just doesn't sit well with our aim of encyclopedic neutrality. It doesn't matter that everyone agrees it was an atrocity, we still can't describe it as such.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Everyone agrees that 9/11 was a tragedy. Thousands of reliable sources refer to it as a tragedy. Yet the 9/11 article doesn't contain the word "tragedy" (or any of its synonyms). Why? Because an encyclopedia article must be impartial and objective, and "tragedy" is a subjective term. It's an opinion, not a fact. Anyone reading the 9/11 article would likely conclude that the event was a tragedy, but we can't directly tell them to think that.

"Atrocities" is judgemental language, and no clarity would be lost by replacing it with "crimes", so according to WP:NPOV, that's what we should do. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the 9/11 article doesn't use every adjective that could be applicable doesn't really prove anything. The first paragraph of the 9/11 article uses for instance "terrorist", also a negative "judgemental" term (but one that is perfectly accurate). "Atrocity" is not a word to avoid when what is being described is an atrocity. It is used as a factual description in several articles that warrant it (e.g. Rumbula massacre) and even in article titles (e.g. 1971 Bangladesh atrocities and Kindu atrocity) so your interpretation of NPOV policy does not reflect Wikipedia practice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Terrorist" isn't a negative judgemental term, it's a legitimate word used to describe someone who engages in terrorism. Terrorism is easily defined; the use of terror to further political goals can be objectively described as act of terrorism (just as "murder" can be objectively applied to mean the deliberate killing of another person). But nothing can be objectively called an atrocity.

Whatever. I'm not going to get anywhere with this. I'll drop it. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Massacre", "Murder" and "killing" aren't neutral either. This article should be kept to a higher standard. As it is, it's grossly unencyclopedic. The tone is patently biased. Angie Harmon (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Idiot troll is idiotic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

("the most 'army like' rifle allowed in Norway")

Not true!. M16 and AK clones are legal in norway. thous this statment is by far incorrect.

http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/filer/sf-20110909-0930.html (norwegian laws regarding which rifles are allowed / translation Follows underneat orginal article)

§ 5 Approved semi-automatic rifles for hunting

The following semi-automatic rifles that meet the minimum overall length and barrel length for weapons § 2, ​​first paragraph, is approved for the acquisition, ownership and possession to hunt, see Firearms Regulation § 7, if the firearm at the factory are manufactured to only being able to fire semi-automatic fire :

long and irrelevant list of firearms
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Winchester M/100, 2. Browning BAR (with the exception of the Browning BAR M/1918) 3. Remington Model Four, 4. Remington model 7400, 5. Remington 742 Wood Master, 6. Ruger Mini 14, 7. Ruger Mini 30, 8. Heckler & Koch Model 2000, 9. Marlin model 45, 10. Marlin Model 9 Camp carabiner, 11. Valmet Petra, 12. Valmet Hunter, 13. Voeren model 2185, 14. Vepr Super, 15. Vepr Pioneer, 16. Vepr Hunter 17. Benelli Argo, 18. Sauer mod 303, 19. Carl Gustav 2000 light / Carl Gustav 2000 Classic weapon, 20. Merkel SR 1, 21. Remington 750, and 22. Heckler & Koch Model 770

Also many more types are allowed for practical shooting. i just listed the ones allowed for hunting, but it proves the statment very wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.16.208 (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:No original research. The quoted bit appears to be Breivik's assessment, which should be noted as such, though, since it's of questionable reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, the quoted bit could be removed for not being properly sourced, was just done. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've deleted the quote, as it is far from clear where it is cited from (quotes must be explicitly sourced) - and if it is from Breivik, we aren't particularly interested in propagating his fantasies anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous mention of Breivik's support of Zionism.

Breivik's own manifesto clearly indicates that his primary grievance was multiculturalism, and therefore he sympathises with and supports nationalism and nation-states in many of their manifestations. The singling out of his support of Zionism, while ignoring all other nationalisms, while ignoring the fact that this was simply a facet of his broader support for nation-states grounded in his opposition to multiculturalism is done with specific intent to attach a despicable man to Zionism, Israel, and the Jewish people. Moreover, it is also an attempt to associate Zionism with terrorism, mass murder, and other horrible acts. Just because the Jerusalem Post mentions his support for Zionism DOES NOT mean that this support was central to his core ideological leanings or political philosophy, and by extension to his motivations for carrying out a mass murder. The mention of Zionism should ONLY be mentioned in the context of his broader support for nationalism and nation-states, and should certainly NOT be in the introductory paragraph listen as a central focus of his ideological leanings/political philosophy/motivations. Bobinisrael (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• We are not singling out Zionism; Breivik did. There's no reason to remove or downplay this information just because of your concerns of guilt by association. (After all, even Hitler believed that two plus two equals four.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Except Breivik didn't single out Zionism, he talked about his support for nationalism in a general sense while opposing multiculturalism. I've clearly stated this fact in my initial contribution, which you've unsurprisingly COMPLETELY ignored. His writings about Zionism and Israel dealt primarily with the unique experience they've had with Islam/Islamism/Islamic terrorism/Muslims, which he thought provided important lessons to Europe to combat what he viewed as a gradual and softer Islamic conquest via contemporary immigration and multiculturalism policies. The article is dishonestly singling out Zionism for transparent reasons, and you're sticking up for it. Predictably, the actual manifesto itself IS NOT sourced. God forbid one should actually go to the widely available primary source that laid out this man's ideology, political philosophy, and motivations for mass murder. Even the video he compiled is not linked in the article. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly: Breivik's support of Zionism is connected to his opposition to Islam, and the Wikipedia article correctly links the two. Indeed, commentators have referred to this. (Wikipedia articles are generally sourced to secondary sources; drawing conclusions from a primary source would constitute original research or synthesis which is outside the scope of Wikipedia.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
      • No, this is misleading, the editors of the article are clearly trying to characterise Zionism as an anti-Islamic ideology, which is of course nonsensical. I don't understand how actually drawing on clear statements that Breivik made in his own manifesto and video (which are predictably not linked in this article) in English constitutes "original research". Breivik also made no mention of Zionism in his 12-minute video, but the reader is dishonestly propagandised to believe that support for Zionism (and not nationalism in a broader sense) was a primary driver of his actions, and a fundamental component of his ideology/political philosophy. This is done by design for transparently anti-Zionist reasons. You're still ignoring the basic fact that Breivik did not single out Zionism, contrary to your earlier dishonest statement. Looks like I'm going to have to edit this article...Bobinisrael (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
        • As the note at the top of this page makes clear, we do not source material for this article from Breivik's 'manifesto' - any content you add sourced from there will be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• That's not what the note at the top of the page says. Content can be sourced from the manifesto and/or video in the appropriate context. Thank you for revealing your commitment to the dishonest narrative of this article by trying to prevent me from engaging in a constructive edit. Bobinisrael (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia article does not imply that Zionism is anti-Muslim; please don't accuse the editors of ulterior motives. You have said, and I have agreed, that Breivik supported Zionism precisely because he opposes Islam. That's why the two are linked in the lead. As for your suggestion of using Breivik's manifesto (which is indeed linked to in the references, though just as a source about itself): Please read the policy against original research. Primary sources should be only used for simple facts; drawing conclusions from them should be left to secondary sources, which can be used as references. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That is NOT what I said, his support for Zionism was grounded in his broader support for nationalism, and the opposite of contemporary multiculturalism policies. His talk of Zionism was primarily with respect to its greater experience with Islam and and what Breivik describes as Islamic conquest/imperialism. He refers to Zionism specifically as a cautionary tale for Europe to learn from with respect to its currently changing demographics, specifically with respect to the growing proportion of its population that self-identify as Muslims.
  • Exactly. "Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source". Bobinisrael appears to be proposing to edit the article according to his interpretation of the source - which is against WP:OR policy, and will be deleted. And lay off the ridiculous accusations of 'dishonesty', unless you wish to be blocked from editing entirely. We comment on Breivik's support for Zionism in the article because multiple commentators have done the same - including Ben Hartman of the Jerusalem Post - was Hartman's statement that Breivik supports "far-right Zionism" an attempt to discredit Israel? Obviously not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • This argument amounts to, "I can't be anti-Semitic because I have a Jewish friend". A stupidly written article at the Jerusalem Post hardly supports the dishonest narrative being put forward here that describes Zionism as one of Breivik's primary ideological motivators. More importantly, the article is being used as support for a point in a dishonest context, for reasons I've already explained. If the assertion of Zionism being central to Breivik's ideology was true (and it most certainly IS NOT true), then why not add a hyperlink at the bottom of the page to connect this article to "Zionist terrorism"? Bobinisrael (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • While you claim that I appear to be proposing an edit based on "original research", you on the other hand blatantly misrepresented a Wikipedia policy in stating that any reference to primary sources (either Breivik's manifesto or the 12-minute video he composed) made by me will be instantly deleted, without exception. Your own words were, "any content you add sourced from there will be deleted". That is NOT what the Wikipedia policy referenced in the note at the top of the page entails. So much for good faith.Bobinisrael (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that the accusation of dishonesty was not made against any person. Bob is a new editor who I believe is reacting as can be expected from multiple severe WP:BITE violations by established editors who should know better. —Cupco 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

I think that I have rectified all of the Dead links in this article, as well as the sole Citation message.--Soulparadox (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)