Talk:2011 Norway attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sizable sections of Breivik's manifesto copied from Unabomber's[edit]

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

WTA Terrorist[edit]

it said to check the talk page for the opening line statement of terrorist (which is also unsoruced) but i found nothing and since WP:Consensus can change the word, though used in the media, is not WTA accepted as this is not a media service to parrot what the media with all its biases and sensationalism say it is. Sure used in QUOTES and explicitly attributed to the media or whoever specific but that doesnt make it gospel truth or encylopaedic worth.Lihaas (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

you didn't look very hard, did you? here it is [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with you. Though this guy seems to fancy himself a terrorist, I don't think that word belongs in the opening sentence. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
What word would you suggest if not the one used by almost every source discussing the topic? By that logic any article involving the word terrorist, or terrorism, should be avoided. It surely would help bring down the number of articles.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The sources are not governed by the pesky need for NPOV, we are. I have revert all use of the term terrorist as per WP:LABEL, and of course WP:CCC. Please read WP:BRD.--Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Someone reverted me with a consensus argument. And was reverted again. Again, WP:CCC and WP:BRD. Most importantly, the guideline WP:LABEL suggests we shouldn't use the term "terrorist" at all. Of course, consensus can overcome a guideline, but it seems to me this will be an eternal WP:LABEL issue. However, there is no reason to allege "consensus", there really isn't a consensus when the revert of my revert is reverted by another user who might be yet reverted. The reality is, there is no consensus, there is, however a guideline that speaks strongly in favor of not using the term, and I see no reason here why we should suspend the guideline. Of course, I do suggest that instead of plain "undo" people revisit the argument as per WP:BRD. THere is chance, however slight, that someone can come up with a compelling argument as to why we should ignore this guideline in this case. --Cerejota (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota, and BRD seems to require more discussion. I believe the way the content was presented we could be seen as teaching rather than letting the reader decide. It is one thing to attribute a source as saying a thing, while it is entirely another to simply state it as fact. That is why I reverted the edit on a one time basis. My76Strat (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The reason you can not see it on this specific talk page and not see a consensus is because every previous discussion about this subject has been archived. The two biggest of those can be found on archive page 2 [2] and 3 [3]. Not everybody knows the interwiki-abbreviations, but I'm assuming you mean WP:WTA, which was discussed on talk page 3. And the direct quote from WP:WTA is "Value-laden labels [...] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject [...]" (my emphasis). There have been plenty of references supporting the use of the word, but in order to satisfy those that did not agree with the one reference various people have added, several additional references has been added throughout revision history, but then the reference list got so long that it made the lead very awkward to read, and thus others again had them removed, and then the word itself got removed again by someone else, and the discussion started anew. Here are just a few of the references previously used: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] etc. The perpetrator (ABB) can be a terrorist even though he is a wacko Christian and not a Muslim. His acts is exactly how terrorism is defined in the Norwegian criminal law, and a couple of lawyers interviewed on Norwegian television has even stated that this is not a case of guilty or not, but how long and what kind of sentence he will get, since ABB has already admitted doing the acts. Laniala (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me we should use the definition of terrorism from Norwegian criminal law. According to US law, terrorism is politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, defining this act as not being terrorism. Grstein (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not so obvious to me why our personal opinion should be more important than what RS have to say about this. In case you missed it the why is discussed in WP:ORWP:VWP:RS.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 14:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If the souce says it then it should be sourced and quoted as such to their opinion,. WP DOES NOT MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS to state it as gospel truth. and Sas per CCCC here to we have a discussion. Asit stnads the page states terrorism as gospel truth, that is SUBJECTIVE regardless of who agrees with wath.Lihaas (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 Norway attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)