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 89.8.239.64 (talk) at 11:20, 28 March 2016 (→‎Innuendo about Breivik and hidden GPS coordinates: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


ENGVAR

Per this revision, I think the article was originally written in commonwealth English. At the moment it is in a mixture of both main dialects of English, which isn't ok. I propose to standardise on CE. Any objections? --John (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Norway was in the Commonwealth? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, and neither is it in one of the places where they use American English. In fact it isn't an English-speaking country at all. In cases like this the rule is that we keep the earliest established dialect. I think this, for this article, is British (or Commonwealth) English. I don't feel all that strongly about it, but it cannot continue to be in a mixture of both. --John (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a very strange rule that is, especially here. But anything would be better than a mixture I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's intended to prevent edit-warring over (for example) petrol vs gasoline. It generally works pretty well. --John (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, plenty of that up there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since Norway has a lot of contact with GB, British English is preferred in the country when it comes to writing. BP OMowe (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other arguments which reach a different conclusion are that there has been significant immigration to the US in the 19th century and on. Regarding soldiering - our (Norwegian) soldiers are quite ethical we believe. And when our soldiers take prisoners in Afghanistan, we turn them over to the Americans, according to press reports. The press reports have not said that our soldiers are starstruck by the US military, but the reports have to a degree painted part of that picture.

An alternative to the idea of either British English or American English: Toss a coin about one of the two being used in the first half of the article; the last half can go to the other "language".
To offset the idea about British spelling (and culture) being so pervasive in Norway: our country has more hamburger joints then fish & chips shops. More Norwegians have studied in the US than in Britain.
The number of #1 hits for Sir Paul McCartney might say more about the lack of sophistication in the consumption of music in Norway, than our admiration of British culture in general. 46.212.144.205 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias by one author

User:Martinevens123 has had a problem with presenting Breivik as a Christian and inserts "Odinist" as he religion even though under the section regarding Breivik's religious view shows he was mildly sceptical towards it then outright denounces it. I tried to edit the article, not to add that he was a Christian, but to remove Odinism from his religion. Martinevans123 immediately removes this and tells me to take it to talk. Here I am and I'm going to remove it again. Wikipedia is supposed to be a vehicle of knowledge not for the bigotry of people like Martinevans123 and it should not contain false information to serve the political and social views of others. If he cannot extend to others the same respect he himself expects, he should not be allowed to edit at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.192.238 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See preceding discussions. Not just me. I didn't originally add "Odinist". Please don't call me "a bigot" for reverting an edit lacking consensus. You now seem to be edit warring. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, there has been no consensus, merely arguments about his status as a Christian followed by you asserting he is an Odinist (even though his writings, quoted in the article itself, refute this). I'm not starting an "edit war", I'm merely editing the article to fit the facts rather than an agenda and yes, I am calling you a bigot because you are outright lying to distance Christianity from Breivik and demonise another group who have no relation to him, a group that Christians have had a bad history with. That's a paragon case of bigotry. I'm happy for neutral arbitration on this matter, as far as I see it, you are starting and edit war. You asked me to take my reasons to Talk, here I am. (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the Talk Page discussion is to establish consensus before making further edits, not just to open a thread, threaten another editor, call him a bigot and immediately revert. Please remove your unjustified and repeated personal attack. Where did I "assert he is an Odinist"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will simply this higher up if you edit it again. I have justified my changes and I base my accusation (which will be part of my defence of blocking you from editing this article) on the bias you display in the other thread about his religious views and your own user page so I happy to defend that as justified too and it is not an attack, it is an accusation of bias. He is not an Odinist, the Wikipedia page itself contains quotes and sources that demonstrate this and there is no justification you have ever given for your inclusion of this. That you cannot do unto others as you would have done unto yourself is your problem but don't demonise others on a public resource for a personal agenda. If you do not assert that he is an Odinist, and the article itself demonstrates he is not, what exact problem do you have with my edit? You are the only person who has mentioned Odinism in relation to him and you took enough of an interest to edit my change, defended in my summary of the change, to revert it 3 minutes later. 86.168.192.238 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence doesn't really make sense. But you seem to be again threatening me. You have a strange view of collaborative editing. Please retract your ridiculous personal attack or take it to AN/I. Could you clarify what you mean when you write "the bias you display in the other thread about his religious views and your own user page"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain this paragraph, that has again been added, not by me, but by editor consesnsus:
"In letters sent to Norwegian newspaper Dagen in 2015, Breivik said that he "is not, and has never been a Christian", and that he thinks there are few things in the world more "pathetic" than "the Jesus-figure and his message".[1] He states that he prays and sacrifices to Odin, and identifies his religion as Odinism.[1]"
Do you intend to rip this out as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Breivik mener Jesus er «patetisk» [Breivik thinks Jesus is "pathetic"]". Dagen (in Norwegian). 19 November 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
Seems like reference should be given to the fact that he's given conflicting statements on the subject, rather than giving some more weight than others. As in other things he's explicitly said he is Christian, including his manifesto. Here's one source that's in the article at present for instance. 219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anders Behring Breivik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anders Behring Breivik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing article from Category:Neo-Nazis

Breivik's manifesto issues multiple condemnations of the Nazi movement, e.g. "I remain a staunch anti-Nazi and I blame NSDAP for the situation we are in... If the NSDAP had been isolationistic instead of imperialistic (expansionist) and just deported the Jews (to a liberated and Muslim free Zion) instead of massacring them, the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism would have never been institutionalized in Western Europe, because the Marxists would never have been so radicalized to begin with." 213.109.230.96 (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use primary source based original research. Although he says they made mistakes in that quote, he still operated from the same basic assumptions they held. During his trial, he identified neo-Nazis as influences on his thinking. Also, he had later explicitly self-identified as a national socialist. Just because he thinks that the original Nazis should have handled things a little differently doesn't mean that he thinks they were completely wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That looks quite clear, and might even warrant addition to the article, if it comes from a WP:RS. But it seems to contradict what is already reported in the article - about his intention to start a neo-Nazi party and what he said at his trial about being influenced by neo-Nazis. What's the source and date of that quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's from page 1435 (pdf page, anyway) of "2083," which recycles so much other work that that may or may not actually be his writing. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. So primary source and not even very reliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Don't we have a notice when you try to edit the article basically saying "if you're citing 2083, don't bother"...? I remember we used to. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... whoops. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not a neo-Nazi, why did he give the Nazi salute in court on March 15? Sca (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self identification is infinitely labile, and likely to produce crises of attribution for Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not infinitely labile, and killing 77 people is likely to produce crises of understanding for normal people (too). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In court on March 16, "Breivik, 37, told the judge ... that he would fight for National Socialism (Nazism) until the day he died." I suggest that the Category:Neo-Nazis is eminently appropriate for this individual. Sca (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit and 2016 trial

The "Lawsuit and 2016 trial" section is getting very detailed and very large. It may deserve its own article. We still have another full day to go. I've tried to reduce the sourcing of every nearly every individual sentence (to the same source) and have tried to remove and/or provide translations for the original Norwegian. Also added bullets. Not sure what else to suggest to try and make it less unwieldy. I think there is probably too much detail here. Wikipedia is not a news service. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a bit uneven. We now have a large gap on the last day, between 11.14 and 15.27, when the court was adjourned? Or is all of this material judged to be not significant? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might not be too much about the 2016 trial, and yes the subject also deserves its own article. When its own article is in place, I will have some specific suggestions about what can be moved to other sections. Another way too shorten the article is to shorten the mention of his playstations and X-boxes; it seems that one is trying to paint the picture of a criminal being spoiled rotten, rather than a prisoner who is nearing a fifth year of not having been given the chance to interact face to face with one or more fellow prisoners - isolation by the order of the government. The European Court of Human Rights allows for a prisoner's human rights to be somewhat breached for some years, if concessions are made, such as extra visits. It is possible that one or more Norwegian courts will conclude that the government has been "a day late and a dollar short" in offering concessions for breaches of human rights, but that remains to be seen. 89.8.24.12 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the strangest items which maybe should not be removed, might be that he sees a military chaplain every other week; I have not seen any source that says that this is a concession that the government has granted him: After all he has never seen a day of service in the Norwegian Armed Forces. And then there is the prison visitor that the government has provided him with - an officer of the armed forces. He is apparently being treated like a lawful combatant. The phrase "You can't make up this shit", does not seem far off. 89.8.24.12 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too dynamic interpretation

One regjeringsadvokat "warned against a too dynamic interpretation of EMK", and added that Norwegian courts must deal with the wording of the convention and concrete verdicts.[1]

In layman's terms the warning might be reworded as "do not make an overreaching interpretation". The warning is about as unspecific as saying "It is important not to make any mistakes at work". The first part of the sentence might be a general observation, but the last part of the sentence is clearly obvious. 46.15.25.115 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innuendo about Breivik and hidden GPS coordinates

I don't see much diffence between the recent version and the following fictitious version:

"Norwegian computer security analysts were in 2011 in the process of researching what appear to be hidden pedo-phile activity codes in Breivik's manifesto, including references to the GPS coordinates of several major sites throughout Europe".

Recent version: "Norwegian computer security analysts were in 2011 in the process of researching what appear to be hidden codes in Breivik's manifesto, including references to the GPS coordinates of several major sites throughout Europe.("Experts try to decode Breivik's manifesto".)"

Both versions come across as a smear campaign~against Breivik. The paragraph from the "10:51, 28 March 2016‎"-version has been moved to discussion, until there is a rationale available for why he should be smeared on this point, nearly five years later. 89.8.239.64 (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Veisende was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&oldid=712315912"