Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Background

This RS sourced bit was removed (almost at 3rr) again and again citing no claims. Background section by precedence are for context not affirmations, thats what the article is. Ans sicne the RS points out whta happened in the SAME week it may be relevant to know the PMs offic was bombed amid threat s to a govt./former govt ministerLihaas (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes revert it back. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is only speculation! AHMR

No. Stop reverting it immediatly.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is ONLY speculation! There is no way that YOU already know the background of this bombing. AHMR

What you are doing is speculations, not the opposit.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bombing

Switched the template over to unknown cause and changed some text as no sources will confirm that this _was_ the result of a carbomb. Journalists are suggesting that it _might_ be the cause of the explosion, but they have also suggested gas. Bjelleklang - talk 15:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we will know soon.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

there are RS spurces that do suggest its a car bomb. Not right to remove it, though the caveat that INITIAL reports suggested would do okayLihaas (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just verbally confirmed as a bomb, I expect sources to mirror that soon. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

cAR bomb i presume you meanv?Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As of now experts commeting on NRK asserts that it must have been a car bomb. The police are merly stating that the explosion was caused by explosives. 84.48.144.92 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

This article does not describe the current event accurtatly, it even uses a picture form another place in Oslo. Swedish Expressen is not an accurate source, and for the moment The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation brodcasts live from thwe place. Please fix the article and don't revert correcvtions. Jeblad (talk · contribs) 15:09, 22 July 2011

This comment was posted on the article [1] but I moved it here.  Chzz  ►  15:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

but BEFORE changing it can we have the sources? the caption nor article wasnt changed but only yhr pic so it was dubiousLihaas (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have sources, then don't do anything. Regjeringskvartalet simply isn't at Youngstorget! Swedish Expressen simply isn't a Norwegian newspaper! Use Norwegian sources like The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. They should be available through streaming. Jeblad (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are there broadcast from this place then? just asking?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

any souces abour Regjeringskvartalet ? (not questioning uyou i know how crap the media can be there was a bombing in my city a week ago)Lihaas (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Regjeringskvartalet is located at Akersgata, in Akersgata several newspapers where located earlyer, you will find references to VG which is still located there, I worked at one of the newspapers for several years. Yes it is Regjeringskvartalet. The explosion was hetween whats called H-blokka and R4, close to Grubegata. The police has just confirmed it was a bomb. Jeblad (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone from Norwya i dont doubt your are right but we still need sources. This was changed without any sourced. pthis too. im not adding that back, but i removed this pending SOURCES confirmation. (the mumbai bombings claim opera house was deadly close to oberoi at the last attacks, it isnt THAT close)Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Youngstorget is a plaza a bit away from the actual place attacked which was used for triage and command center for the services on location. Therefor was some of the news people there because that was where they could have a chance of getting any info. --Jpfagerback (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mullah Krekar

The section about Mullah Krekar is speculative and should be removed. At this moment there is no known connection whatsoever. Its only newsmedia speculating. Jeblad (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If threats were made within the same week as a major explosion in Oslo then it should stay actually.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually they are not from the same week. They are pretty old. The charges in the case is about a threat fom a press conference June 10th 2010.[2] Jeblad (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Its staying. thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It isn't us doing the speculating, it's Al Jazeera. It is a fact that that news source (referenced) mentions Mullah Krekar in connection with the bombing.  Chzz  ►  15:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

USA today [3], Globe & Mail [4], News 24 [5] and many other sources also make the connection.  Chzz  ►  15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section, it just adds to the confusion. Until someone can connect the two, it shouldn't be in the article, at least not that prominent. Also, the threats came one-and-a-half week ago, and wasn't directed at the PM. Bjelleklang - talk 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Chzz here. It's not OR nor SYNTH as long as reliable sources already have made the connection. Eisfbnore • talk 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Im also with Chzz ..it should stay.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

All those refs I mentioned are from today, in relation to the bomb. The connection has been made, not by us - we're merely reporting it.  Chzz  ►  15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is only speculation and as long as there is no confirmation of this rumor, it's unsound to spread this allegation. AHMR (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are ofcourse free to feel that, but it doesnt change that fact that it should be included.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's to early to know anything about the background of the bombing. If you read the article of al jazeera carefully, you will notice that even they don't make this connection. On BBC they currently speculate about the background and it could be anything: the Norwegian involvement in Libya, the danish muslim cartoons. But as long as there is no confirmation about the background it is highly speculative and unsound to report on the possible background. AHMR (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to do this article a favour, please switch the order of the sections, report on the facts first, and on random but attributable-to-journalists speculations on possible background or perpetrators later. Don't throw around unsubstantiated (but attributable-to-journalists) speculation before you even discuss what happened. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Speculation. Remove immediately. Keanu (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Speculation from reliable sources. Should stay. --Eisfbnore • talk 16:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What reliable sources? It's speculation, nothing more! AHMR — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHMR (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The section should be removed, or it should be emphasized in the article that the section is speculation. Keanu (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree! It could be even a domestic terrorist attack. Apparently a youth camp outside of the city was also attacked... AHMR (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I linked 3 major news sources who have connected this, above. There are many more. To not report it would be non-neutral. It's a referenced fact, supported by myriad news publications. We're not speculating, we're not drawing any conclusion or synthesising - we are merely repeating claims made in independent reliable sources.  Chzz  ►  16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You used "indent", but you did not react to my comment. I didn't say the thing should be removed. I said the sectino should be moved down, because referenced facts are more relevant than referenced speculation. --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There's no policy that says we must include speculation in any article. Certainly it shouldn't precede the information about the bombing itself, and adding a heading of "Background" implies a factual legitimacy that it does not yet possess. Yomangani^talk 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'm quite happy it has been moved. No problem there. My comment was more directed to the people saying it should be removed - hence the 'edit conflict' tag. Sorry if the indentation made that unclear.  Chzz  ►  16:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. "Possibly related". Because just keeping a section called "other events" is silly. Why would we list "other events" unless it has been suggested there is some connection to the topic? --dab (𒁳) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

cklearest case yet of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that specifically against this consensus while claiming consensus is not needed.[6]Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous?

I have read on some parts of the internet that Anonymous has claimed responsibility, can anyone confirm this? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No groups have claimed responsibility for the attack right now. -- Luke ^Talk 16:5

Utøya

In the latest press conference, the norwegian police said they believed the two incidents were connected. Perhaps consider merging the subarticle back into the main article? --Xover (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been done, though without solid evidence that the two events are directly related, I can't see why. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Awkward English

Would someone care to change "The offices of TV 2 have been evacuated after a suspicious package has been found outside the building" to "The offices of TV 2 were evacuated after a suspicious package was found outside the building"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of shooting victims

Note that the 25-30 number is speculation from an eyewitness being interviewed by phone. The police are so far declining to even confirm that there are any casualties at all, much less any specific number. They've indicated they may provide more information at the next press briefing. --Xover (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to avoid mentioning numbers until we know for sure a few days from now. The newest update from the police deny that there are more than ten dead, and they prefer to use the phrase "many dead" to giving an uncertain number: http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/07/22/nyheter/innenriks/skyteepisode/utoya/17418837/. EliF (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

doesnt seem so, but if the RS analysis suggests then it should be )(as hopeles as biz media epeculation always is)Lihaas (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal reports "at Least 87 Dead". New York Times reports "At Least 80 Are Dead". Washington Post says "At least 87 dead", 80 of those at the Youth Camp, "police say". Time to update Wikipedia's body county with reliable sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A total of 87 people are confirmed dead, so far. (Norwegian police giving a press conference, on Norewgian public service television: "Politiet: Minst 80 drepte på Utøya" http://www.nrk.no/nyhete/norge/1.7723555 )212.85.89.247 (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Map and picture of Utøya

This article and the Utøya article would be helped by having a map and/or pictures of this, until now, obscure island. A map of Utøya in relation to Oslo would be particularly helpful in my opinion. --Tocino 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move discussions

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by HJ Mitchell. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Page ought to be moved to 2011 Oslo bombing, but it was already a redirect to here

Just saying, as it was confirmed that it was a bomb. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Should be named to 2011 Norway attacks

Just saying because Utoya is nowheres near Oslo. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe so too. The BBC are starting to report this as "Norway Attacks" on television. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Until the situation has somewhat calmed down and the police have a proper overview on the plausible connection between the two connections, I don't think it would be technically correct to edit the name quite yet. --Nitrolinken (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be 2011 Norway attacks

So far, the most serious incident appears to be the shooting, not the bombing, and this was not in Oslo.--Cerejota (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it should be anything without the word "attacks". It's just wrong. Lugnuts (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes we need 3 articles 2011 Norway attacks the major article after we have to split in two articles 2011 Oslo bombings and 2011 Utoya shootings - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Already the media is wising up this was not just Oslo...--Cerejota (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be changed as soon as possible. Utøya is in a different county than Oslo, and seems to be the most serious of the two attacks. Lampman (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Title: "2011 Norway attacks" instead?

Not sure why, but to my native-English-speaking ears, this sounds a bit clunky (whereas "2011 Oslo attacks" doesn't). But a very good point that the attacks are not confined to Oslo, meaning that the current title is not wholly accurate. 74.94.84.81 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See previous section. Even the sources agree [7]. Accuracy over timbre, I say. As another editor commented, I can see this being a parent article, 2011 Norway attacks that links to sub-articles for each individual attack/bombing/shooting.--Cerejota (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera uses "Norway attacks" instead of Oslo attacks. Kavas (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this would have already been solved had some admin not "prevented vandalism" by move protecting instead of just semi-protect.--Cerejota (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Plausible suggesting i would support the move and then merge the 2 pages.Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

2011 Oslo attacks → 2011 Norway attacks – Al Jazeera (and others) uses Norway attacks and one attack was not at Oslo. Kavas (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as non-controversial - all sources sinc ethe second attack are calling this as such. We can later have a single page just for the Oslo attack, but right now everything together in Norway.--Cerejota (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Had both incidents taken place in Oslo, then we could've left the article title as it is now. However, since these two incidents are suspected to be related to each other, it seems like a good idea to move the page to "2011 Norway attacks". Also, we don't know yet if more attacks will take place or not. HeyMid (contribs) 21:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, this should have happened a long time ago. Lampman (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Responsibility

Is it uncontrovertible according to sources that the police have a man and that this man is a neo-nazi and that the two attacks in Norway are connected. Please stop inserting unverified material, original research, early speculation, and synthesis.--Cerejota (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would make sense to remove Ansar al-Jihad as "Suspected perpetrator". This was a natural early suspicion, but by now evidence points elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian police have made a statement to the effect that they have a 32 year old Norwegian national in custody; that they have ascertained his identity; that he is communicating with interrogators; that they are certain that he was involved in the Utøya shooting; and that, based on eyewitness reports of physical description and of clothing (the fake police uniform), they believe that he was also involved in the bombing. Norwegian media are reporting as fact (but I believe they are really speculating) that the suspect is also ethnically Norwegian (probably based on eyewitness reports that the attacker at Utøya was tall and blonde); and that police are currently in the process of searching his apartmen in the western part of Oslo. There are no (none) reports in Norwegian media that any particular group is involved, and their speculation is in the direction of a Timothy McVeigh type rather than any Islamic connection. There are no official statements regarding motives or affiliations. --Xover (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The police have confirmed that he is "of Norwegian ethnicity", and eyewitnesses have described him as 6'2", fair-skinned and fair-haired. That's all that is publicly known in Norway at the moment. The Norwegian media clearly know who he is, but revealing his identity would be a violation of their self-imposed ethical guidelines. DES (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly, a "Anders Behring Breivik" is the perpetrator, according to the BBC.--TheGreatDefective (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: there is no official statement on the identity of the suspect, and Norwegian media is not reporting this speculation. In accordance with WP:BLP, please refrain from reporting this speculation until there is an official statement about the suspect's identity. Please also redact the name from your comment above (BLP applies also to talk pages). There is no deadline; it's soon enough to add this information iff and when the suspect is named by official sources. In the mean time, just try to imagine the consequences for this person if the speculation is wrong! --Xover (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Retracted. Norwegian media is now naming the suspect. See VG. --Xover (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Anders Behring Breivik

No consensus to merge at this time. Blurpeace 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Hydrox is suggesting that Anders Behring Breivik be merged into this article on the basis that it fails WP:BLP1E. This section has been created for the related discussion. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep, biographies of living persons shall be created in another space. Kiddie Techie (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Merge, at this stage (July 23, 2011) the individual is only a suspect and most information is speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewjc (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Merge, for now this individual is only known as the perpetrator of the attack. Everything there is to write about him based on reliable sources can be easily included in one section of this article. If the section starts to grow too long (ie. there is lots to write about him), we can later split an article on him. --hydrox (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep for now the recentism issues go both ways, as the perpetrator could fall into RS notability as his court case I find Hydrox's argument, as before in the talk page, unconvincing and a bit of a crystal ball. Since none of us (that I know of!!!) have crystal balls (har-har), I suggest we keep for now and revisit in a few weeks, when we would have a clearer idea of the angle of RS on this event. We have been here before and even BLP1E (to address the nom) gives us a test for exceptions: John Hinckley, Jr, who is known only for shooting President Ronald Reagan, yet has a long article that doesn't fit into Reagan assassination attempt. I feel that the merger attempt fail to read the part of BLP1E that supports the essay WP:WI1E. Simply put, a person whose notability is in connection with one event doesn't automatically fall under BLP1E. --Cerejota (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep, two events. jorgenev 02:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep, or you'll just have to separate him again as he goes to trial, spends time in jail, is released, blah blah. 24.27.31.170 (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC). Keep, when more information about the suspect is known, the more useful it is to keep a separate article. -- Luke Talk 02:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep, for reasons stated above re. separating speculation and 'suspected' involvement from solely factual article concerning main event. Individuals informally named as suspects or perpetrators should be kept separate from accounts of terrorist events until they are convicted by a court (and even then IMO his article should remain as it may be used to detail things like research and journalistic reportage into his sociopolitical background etc. at a later date). Christopher (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep separate, as he will have a lot more content than just today's attacks, and this article will also continue to swell in size. —Torchiest talkedits 02:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep - It would be willful ignorance to apply WP:CRYSTAL as to the future reporting of the details of this person.--Oakshade (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep for the reasons others have stated above. —Lowellian (reply) 03:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Merge for now, based on WP:BLP1E. I know they're technically two events, but I think the spirit of that policy applies. Obviously this can change as later information is revealed, but for now there just isn't enough to have a separate article, imho. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The spirit of the WP:BLP1E policy is to protect the privacy of "low profile individuals" who found themselves in the news for no fault of their own. --Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC) [citation needed]. I always thought it was for making the maintenance of articles easier, as the article on the sole event that the person is known for and the article on the person itself will easily overlap. --hydrox (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) This is not a paper encyclopedia. Citation given. :)--Cerejota (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep as per the reasons above. — Doppelheuer (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Wait This happens for pretty much any terrible event like this. I think more information is going to come in the following days to fill in the gap. Merging it now would pretty much ensure that biographical information about the killer won't be added and in keeping an encyclopedia, information is invaluable. If nothing comes out about his living before the attack it may be a good move later on. Acebulf (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Wait After a few days there will be more info on the subject, and then a poll can be held. Calling it "two events" based on the two crimescenes is ridiculous. Just saying. This should be merged ASAP. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Wait What is the rush? These events are practically still ongoing? A merger is premature at this point in time. --Pstanton (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose Merge without prejudice towards a future merge if this turns out to be the wrong guy. But in any case, even in the unlikely case that the police arrested the wrong guy--this would be a Steven Hatfill type case. As it stands now, this guy is the culprit in one of the most shocking terrorist attacks in the western world in some time. And note that the WP:BLP1E guideline specifically exempts high profile terrorists. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep for now. We can wait and see if he is significant enough to have his own article, like Timothy McVeigh. If not, merge will be better. Shuipzv3 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Wait Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Merge because his notability is highly limited. Many perpetrators of major crimes who are known for nothing else are merged into their crime's articles. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Merge, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. --Enok (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Wait, leaning toward Keep Considering what he did, it is highly likely that he is going to be in a huge media circle when he goes on trial. Some of you seem to be ignoring the second paragraph of WP:BLP1E, which states "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." You cannot determine the persistence of the coverage after such a short time from the event. We have to wait in order to see if the coverage persists. SilverserenC 07:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Comment - as I predicted, this is practically snow for wait, bu tthat said, this is what BLP1E says on exceptions: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." So even BLP1E tells us to wait, because to determine the individual's role in the incident, we will need to wait for the judgement of the RS, and that, my friends, requires time.--Cerejota (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Keep. The appalling atrocities in Oslo and, especially, at the summer camp at Utøya, exceed what Seung-Hui Cho did, both in the sheer number of murders (when I heard there were 80 deaths at Utøya on the radio this morning I was stunned) and the political ramifications. In the store today, I saw Breivik over the front pages of both VG and Dagbladet, and it is utterly clear that there already has been, and will be more, research into this man's background and history. Per the notability guideline for perpetrators, a sufficient criterion is: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." The caution that a person is not guilty until convicted does not seem applicable, this man was captured more or less red-handed at the island. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Merge, he is not notable except for this massacre 8digits (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists claim responsibility, according to "The Long War Journal"

http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/updates-on-the-oslo-bombing-1.149868

Is it legitimate? I suppose a more reputable source should be referenced. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No Norwegian source is reporting any connection to any group. They're not even calling it a terrorist attack yet. --Xover (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but I suppose the Norwegian sources would release sources that have been approved by the Norwegian services, whereas this information is supposedly being reported from the US by an intelligence group that monitors jihadist groups. Here is another source I found. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?_r=2&src=tptw

I think BBC: "No-one has claimed responsibility for the attack" is the most accurate description just now (18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)), the others claims just seem to be wild speculation. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems someone already created a page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Jihad_al-Alami Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And oddly enough, it seems the first source states Abu Suleiman al Nasser made the claim, but the BBC say Al-Nasser Lideen Allah Abu Suleiman was killed in February in Iraq (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12581313)??? Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An analyst, Johnathan Paris at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, on BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14254705) has quoted the New York Times report (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?_r=2&src=tptw), stating it is a reliable source. Eug.galeotti (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be Nazis or Odinists because one of the gunmen was a blond haired and blue eyed Aryan type. He would more likely be Nazi or Odinist, not Islamic.82.27.25.183 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

i wonder if this man is a convert of the Islamic/Muslim faith, it could be possible that he maybe a Muslim/Islamic convert who decided to join a terrorist organization with ties to Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda themselves. if a American white guy can join Al-Qaeda/The Taliban, the so could a Nordic person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever motive and background this guy had, projecting US culture onto something like this isn't very helpful. I personally think he's just a nutcase with an axe to grind, but that isn't helping the article either. Let's keep calm (and carry on) until the police can give us something useful. TorW (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

How was he apprehended!?

How did this come to an end? Did he run out of ammo? Did he surrender when police came? Was he overtaken by people at the camp? How was he apprehended!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.19.51 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly he was approached by the SWAT team and surrendered without a fight. No word if he had run out of ammo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.55.119 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this was reported on the news, in a police interview IIRC. Don't have a good link for it though Ketil (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? How he was apprehended or surrendered should be added!

I'll look it up.82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be berryed in this huge BBC timeline.[[8]]82.27.19.246 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but no 'timeline' posted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.19.51 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

According to tv2.no he dropped the weapons, and was later approached by police where he then surrendered himself. No shots by police were fired. His weapons were later found on the island.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.195 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive

In the interests of keeping good order,

I've made Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 1 and moved some of the earlier comments - which I believe are now outdated - to the archive.  Chzz  ►  07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Reactions

I've removed it. WP:BOLD

[9]

It's like...we just quote stuff *because* we can quote it, because it is referenced.

How does it add to the understanding of the topic?

Maybe, perhaps, a parahraph or two, saying that the world was very very very sorry about it all...might be OK.

But all this? Seriously.

I can't think of a clean way of dealing with this, other than BOLDly removing it...I'm sure others will disagree with my action, and I welcome comments here.  Chzz  ►  07:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A cleaner way: branch it to another article and await it's deletion. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I considered that, and it's a valid call; feel free to spin off "Reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks" if you want - it's probably notable. I'm just being pragmatic in my bold approach.  Chzz  ►  08:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Reaction sections are a very common method of organization for articles and they contain information that readers wish to see. The length of this one is, however, fairly extensive in comparison to the overall length of the article, but that only means we need to WP:SPLIT it off into it's own article and put a summary paragraph or two in this article with a main article link to it. Silverseren^C 08:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I had added this to the reactions section above (typing it in at the same time as other edits were being made), but it belongs in this later discussion: In an encyclopaedia do we need a reactions section, or article, at all? Simply saying that most countries sent condemnation, condolences, and solidarity is enough. This is all sincere, but virtually automatic and not news; everyone says essentially the same thing. It IS perhaps notable that Libya and Pakistan added other comments, as it is different from everyone else. I've added a sentence to that effect, but consider the rest of the reactions section to be unnecessary for an encyclopaedia as against a newspaper. Pol098 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Added later: I see that the reactions section has been deleted; I have reinstated a very brief section, giving detail of only the two reactions different from the others. Pol098 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Certain countries making comments and also certain comments, depending on what they say, are interesting and of importance to our readers. However, we cannot decide which reactions are of importance or interest, because that is original research. We have to include all of the reactions, since every one of them would be of importance to someone. For me, I always want to see who exactly is making the comment for the US and also, if it has to do with terrorism, what they say about it. Silverseren^C 08:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I make no apols for my abrupt actions. I've dealt with lots of these type of events now, and frankly, I've had enough of President Umbogo of Buugabuugaland said, "It's all very sad".  Chzz  ►  08:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this type of WP:NOTNEWS cruft is all too common, and will seem dated in a few months' time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Adds nothing to the understanding of the event: it would be far more noteworthy if any head of government were to refuse such a statement of sympathy and outrage. This is an encyclopaedia, not a media-watch. One sentence would suffice. Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is, it would be noteworthy in your opinion, but that opinion is one that shouldn't dictate inclusion. The sources should. Silverseren^C 08:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't the usual practice to simply split it off into a big reactions page? -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that would be a good idea. --hydrox (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there was some sort of a bug in my browser. I accidentaly reverted the article several hours back for 15 minutes, and the "reactions" list was restored for this period. Sorry for the inconvenience (and edit conflicts!) --hydrox (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Of cause eveyone says the attacks were bad. Why is that notable? Really only if someone says something good about them it would be notable. -Koppapa (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, just after the attacks, there is possibly newspaper-type interest in the reactions, but in 10 years' time is it going to be relevant that France condemned and condoled? When discussing this, we do need to think encyclopaedia, not current event. Pol098 (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But we also need to understand that Wikipedia considers a far wider range of information than a normal encyclopedia. Sections that describe reactions from various countries gives information such as political climes of the time between the affected country and the responsive countries. That's one type of information that is useful and would remain useful ten years from now. Silverseren^C 08:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's part of the argument, yeah; the other part is: does it help undestand the subject - ie, "2011 Norway attacks". Just 'coz a load of people have said "ooh, yes, it is awful!" in various countries...does not, I think, help with our encyclopaedic understanding.  Chzz  ►  08:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We must obviously agree to disagree, Silverseren. personally I can't see why information such as (randomly chosen): Chile: In a communiqué released by the Foreign Affairs MInistry, the government of Chile lamented the events at Oslo, calling the attacks an "unacceptable expression of violence that Chile strongly condemns." gives any information about the political clime (other than that Chile is not currently at war with Norway) or will be of any interest in ten years. More informative might be "Ruritania sent no message of condolence", and the genuine "Libya says it's NATO's fault". Pol098 (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the Libya response is rather informative. However, again, us deciding which ones are more informative and useful is original research. We can't just decide to keep some of them and deciding to remove all of them also removes genuine useful information that is beneficial to the article. Thus, we should keep them all in. Silverseren^C 09:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, Silver seren, please be quiet and listen to Chzz and Pol098. They are correct, you are wrong. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"We can't just decide to keep some of them" [..] "Thus, we should keep them all in" - nope. We can "Thus" decide to keep them all out. Or, better still, we can present a balanced, fair summary.  Chzz  ►  09:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with the split page as it is right now. If people are interested in the reactions, then they'll click the link to the other page. Though the summary paragraph definitely needs to be fixed, it's very one-sided. Silverseren^C 09:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The domestic reactions are becoming cruft. It is clear that politicians queued up to say how shocked they were etc, but there is no need to introduce repetitive material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

holiday?

The BBC states, "State Secretary Kristian Amundsen said Friday was a public holiday in Norway so the government offices were not as busy as they might usually have been." However, according to the article Public holidays in Norway and some external sources I checked there was no public holiday on Friday. My suspicion is that Amundsen said something like "Many government workers, like the public, was on holiday" (because this is the month Norwegians take vacation typically) through a translator, and the BBC editor morphed that to "government workers were on public holiday".

Can anyone familiar with Norwegian holidays and vacation-taking shed some light on this and why exactly there were fewer people than normal in the city center? - BanyanTree 09:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This period, the last weeks of June, is usually considered "common holiday" (fellesferie) in Norway. While it is not stated in any law that this is the case, it is a publically accepted term. Source: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellesferie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.155.130 (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is not a public holiday, but a significant percentage of the population is on summer vacation. (The Norwegian "ferie" translates to "vacation", the Norwegian word for "holiday" is "helligdag".) Government offices are mostly inactive during the summer. However, it is not a holiday like Sundays or Christmas or Easter. For the most part shops and banks are open, and most businesses have some activity, although the activity is somewhat reduced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The last weeks of JULY are considered "fellesferie", common holidays (Br.) or common vacation time (Amer.). Many offices which are open during this period have shortened hours, closing typically at 3 p.m. and sometimes earlier on Fridays. Thus there would be few people in public buildings at 15:26 on a Friday. Oslo people who can afford it usually spend their summer weekends away from the city; many people have cabins at the shore or in the mountains. Those people hurry home as early as possible on Fridays. --Hordaland (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders' picture

I believe that Anders' picture on Facebook could be uploaded to Commons once it was uploaded to Facebook by Anders himself under Creativecommons license. Is that correct ? Krenakarore (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is sorta OT but do you have any evidence it was uploaded under a creative commons licence? Facebook doesn't provide any way for you to specify a licence so it would have had to been mentioned in the comments or description or something of that sort which I find strange (but not impossible). Note that even if it was, this still doesn't guarantee it's okay, we don't accept any NC or ND licences. And also since his profile was as I understand it taken down and in any case I suspect the image was restricted, proving it was licenced in that way is likely to be difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely this is all moot; the pictures are so widely distributed in the media now, I think we're well past the bar for fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Facebook image almost certainly fails WP:NFCC. Exactly the same thing happened with Jared Lee Loughner after the 2011 Tucson shooting. Eventually a free image of him turned up, but anything non-free will likely be deleted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's comparable (see the FFD for the picture currently open). Unlike in the US, most European countries, including Norway afaik, do not allow to release such photographs to the public. Additionally, Norway has no perp walk, no photos allowed in court, arrival in court will most likely be in secret etc., so most, if not all, possibilities that exist in the US to take a picture of a suspect do not exist in Norway. Regards SoWhy 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is early days yet, and the claim that a free image of him will never turn up is unrealistic. For any living person, there are likely to be free images somewhere. The Facebook image fails WP:NFCC#1--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're agreed that the only criteria in question is whether there might be a free-equivalent available? 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Snow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.27.49 (talk)

Libyan reaction

I think that the Libyan reaction should be mentioned here - after all the Norwegian jets take part in bombing Libya, and this connection was one of the first speculations of media.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Libya was not part of the plot!82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian language problem

Can someone help me? When I put a norwegian web site into english with google translate, the words "bugs" and "vermin" are common in news articles. Ex. Kjetil Vevle tweeted " Someone shoot the vermin. Update the police!" Thanks, --93.137.108.94 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that google translate translates Utøya to bugs or vermin. Weird. Tooga - BØRK! 11:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It does this because of the word "utøy" (vermin). "Utøy" consists of the parts "u" and "tøy". While "Utøya" consists of "ut" ("out") and "øya" ("the island"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.75.9 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Though arguably you're inevitably going to see the word 'vermin' associated with the perpetrator(s) of these acts in Norwegian sources anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.27.49 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Speedy close. Editors are advised that previous discussion arrived at an overwhelming consensus to keep and wait, and we should wait a few days if not a few weeks before having this discussion again. As an aside, I remind editors that WP:BLP1E is not a blanket/automatic prohibition on BLPs notable for one event, and specifically, says If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. --Cerejota (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I suggest that the article Anders Behring Breivik be merged to 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator for the time being. Per WP:BLP1E we do not have separate articles for people who are notable for one thing only (in this case, the attacks), unless they attract persistent coverage in reliable sources. This man will probably qualify for a separate article if and when he goes to trial, but right now it's too early to tell. As a practical matter, the information at 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator is now essentially a duplicate of Anders Behring Breivik, and it is impractical to keep both versions up-to-date and error-free. That's why I propose to merge the content back for now and spin it out again as soon as it becomes too large, per WP:SS.  Sandstein  11:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussed at [10], no consensus to merge. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, at least wait a few days before making another proposal, the prior one finished a few hours ago. Give it a few days and that will give time and more perspective to see whether Breivik will turn out to be an exception or not to the rule and also won't have us doing back to back merge proposals, which is counter-productive. Silverseren^C 11:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see the previous one. It ran only for eight hours or so, but there does seem to be no consensus to merge.  Sandstein  11:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the third proposal for the same request today. The first is here. The second is here. I continue to stand by my opposition. The magnitude of the crime perpetrated here is right up there together with Seung-Hui Cho and Timothy McVeigh, both who have separate articles without any controversy whatsoever. The BLP1E policy is to prevent "coatrack" articles on low-profile individuals (typically: victims who get caught up in major events), but perpetrators who become the subjects of mass scrutiny because of their crimes do not fall under that category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's clear that this person is in the same category as the other two perpetrators you mentioned, but right now there is simply too little verified information to support a full article. We should develop the content in the main article until it's large enough to spin out. This avoids duplication of effort.  Sandstein  12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close This has already been discussed twice within the last 12 hours. Last time the consensus was leaning on wait. --hydrox (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close as above. notable subject etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a textbook case of WP:1E, so I would agree with "speedy close" as long as the merger is also implemented at the same time. There is no reason whatsoever under our guidelines to keep this page separate. The "magnitude of the crime" is completely irrelevant here. The history of notability is. Once this guy has through years of trials and re-trials, perhaps a bio page will be arguable. Certainly not now. Arguing from the "magnitude of the crime" is an extremely misguided attempt to make this a moral discussion, suggesting that the merge proposal goes to belittle the severity of these events. This is completely wrong. Wikipedia does not have a policy of "the more notable an event, the more pages we need to create about it". --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree entirely with dab's comments. This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E and the relevant contents of Anders Behring Breivik should be merged into this article, with Anders Behring Breivik becoming a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspect has has been charged

I don't know where this would fit in but from BBC News and Sky News police have charged a 32 year old male over both attacks which is believed to be Anders Behring Breivik. Just thought this was useful information and if someone could add it to the article.Jonny109 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, English-language source confirming the charges is really useful. --hydrox (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

POV in section "Alleged perpetrator"

Please User:ShipFan insists on marking this section as POV. Please discuss here, what the problem with this section. --hydrox (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• DO NOT remove the tag until the issues are resolved. ShipFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

This section contains second hand hearsay and allegations about somebody who is only a suspect (not convicted of a crime). This violated WP:BLP. A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. ShipFan (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for starters you're using the wrong tag. But anyway can you please give some specific examples of what you feel is at issue? BTW, do note that even if he was convicted of a crime, BLP still applies and second hand hearsay and allegations are still a problem Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No? Really? Innocent until proven guilty? You must have watched too much television.. seriously though, I copyedited the section in the neutralest, most innocent-assuming way possible. Please see if you are happy with this. We can not go much further, if we want to be still able to express information reported by multiple WP:RSs in the section. --hydrox (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "hearsay", if you mean that the information is sourced to newspaper articles written by journalists who didn't witness the attacks, then it is what Wikipedia calls "secondary sourcing", which is the preferred type of sourcing for articles. "Only a suspect" is "not guilty unless and until convicted" does not seem to apply here considering that the person was caught more or less red-handed, with weapons and his police uniform disguise, at the scene of the crime. The "only a suspect" concerns are treated seriously to protect potentially innocent people (e.g. names are generally not released by the media until there is a conviction), but if there are no serious or reasonable doubts, that standard is not adhered to slavishly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to change the heading from "alleged perpetrator" to "suspected perpetrator". The Oslo police have formally charged him as a suspect[11], and as such "supspected" is more correct than "alleged" in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been the section heading for the last three hours, give or take. --hydrox (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My bad, was probably looking at some old cached version. Bjelleklang - talk 15:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody please fix

From the article: "Reports initially suggested that car bombs[11] exploded at the same time at Youngstorget (Young's Square) in Oslo, outside the office of Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and other government office buildings such as the Oil Ministry[11] and Ministry of Finance,[11] with many windows blown out. This later proved to be wrong.[12]"

What proved to be wrong? That windows were blown out? Seriously, that sentence needs clarification. --Hordaland (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The statements are simply wrong, but involved editors starts edit wars to keep the false information in the article. There were no bombs at Youngstorget, and the office of Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and other government office buildings such as the Oil Ministry[11] and Ministry of Finance are simply not at Youngstorget at all. The bomb was located between R4 and H-blokka, that is in Grubbegata. 87.248.5.62 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is actually quite funny: On 23 July 2011 at 15:25 (CEST) a powerful expolosion went off on Youngstorget (Young's Square) in Regjeringskvartalet, downtown Oslo, near the offices of the Prime Minister of Norway and several other governmental buildings, such as the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and Ministry of Finance. Youngstorget isnt part of Regjeringskvartalet, yet both are downtown Oslo. There was no bomb at Youngstorget, its an erroneous report in Swedish Expressen. The bomb was located in in Grubbegata. Youngstorget is located to the right and outside the map in the article. Jeblad (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There were early reports claiming Youngstorget and (ISTR) Akersgata as locations, but I think this was due to the size of the explosion. It seems clear that there was a single, big bomb, probably in a parked car outside the main entrance of the part of the main government building. If you look at the pictures, you will see the extension containging the cafeteria being severely damaged all over, but on the side towards the parking, the concrete wall is broken down, and the rebar is stripped of concrete. The damage on R4 across the road, and the debris blown through the first storey of the highrise seems consistent with this placement. I think the broken car to the right was parked next to the bomb, the car containing the bomb would probably been torn completely apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Source: Breivik in FrP

Possibly of interest as a source: http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/article3196591.ece (in Norwegian). --Hordaland (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in his dedicated article. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing persons

I hear some people are still missing. Just wondering if Google Person Finder been considered. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Police says that 4-5 people are still missing at Utøya (possibly more) and also indicated that more people are missing in relation to the bombing. They expect the death-toll to rise. The article should say Death(s): 7+ (Oslo), 85+ (Utøya). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.179.209.64 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Disassembled?

Troll, blocked, ignore

The bombing disassembled seven human beings ... ... opened fire at the campers, disassembling at least 85 attendees Seriously? disassembled? Who the heck wrote this article. 24.201.59.148 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Non-native english speaker, likely. WP:SOFIXIT. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC) It was vandalism. It has been fixed and the vandal is now blocked. Prolog (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you. I don't understand that kind of behavior. It's a tragedy, I can't see what's to laugh about. Poor English?82.27.19.246 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Well, it looks like a strange choice as a synonym to "killed" or "dead". Specially at the beginning, where it announces that "seven human beings" have been "disassembled" by the explosion. It looks like they've been torn apart, which may be true, but still sounds crude and insensitively "robotic". And later, when we read about the shootings, it gets worst, using that weird term on and on. Like Terminator or Robocop writing the news: "Critical explosion in structure. Disfunctional human executing forbiden proccess. Human beings disassembled. Suspect terminated. All systems operative." Please, let someone with better writing skills than me, change it, and use normal words. EDIT: I've seen it was just fixed. Thanks. It's a troll who was last seen doing the same thing on Japanese earthquake articles. Revert, block, ignore. Acroterion (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) An illiterate user?82.27.19.246 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Account disassembled for vandalism!82.27.19.246 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Water temperature?

For those who haven't been to Norway, it would be nice if we could find a statement about the water temperature around Utoeya Island. This source touches on it [12] but it isn't very clear to me: some survivors jumped into the water, but I don't know how long they could stay there. There were boats with rescuers... did this turn into a search of the water for survivors (or corpses), almost like with a capsized ship? Wnt (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about a major search for survivors, but it has been supposed some might have drowned. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The water temperature is 19°C at this camping site, which is located at a different place at the same lake - http://www.onsakervika.com/akkurat-naa/badetemperatur.html So around the Utøya island it was probably 17°C-19°C depending on the currents, which is not too bad a water temperature for Norway during the summer. Probably about the same air temperature, but occasionally rainy. Maybe a couple of degrees lower. http://www.yr.no/sted/Norge/Buskerud/Hole/Ut%C3%B8ya/ The shortest distance from the island to the mainland if you look at a map is about 600 meters. More if you don't pick the shortest route which a lot of those fleeing not necessarily did in trying to escape. Many might already have been exhausted from the panic and running on the island itself. Many might not have been excellent swimmers, and perhaps wearing cumbersome clothes if it was raining at the moment. So the people that are still missing (and might bring the death toll higher) are being searched for in the water and shorelines. Only time will tell if those still missing people actually were shot in the water or drowned from exhaustion and not being picked up in time by a boat or against all odds are alive somewhere. -Laniala (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I heard a survivor interviewed on BBC World who said they had to swim back to shore as they became bogged down, having been unable to remove their shoes or clothes because the perpetrator was not far behind. OR but [13] gives 2-7 hours for exhaustion or unconciousness and 2-40 hours for survival for a water temperature of 16-21°C while [14] gives 10 hours survival for 18°C. So while possibly a contributing factor it seems general exhaustion etc may have been bigger problems. Nil Einne (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Impact on transportation

The 'Impact on transportation' section is pretty trivial, in the overall scheme of things; shall we remove it? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders' Book 2083

Allegedly this is his book http://www.2shared.com/file/M-s-2fBD/2083-AEuropeanDeclarationofInd.html From the last pages in the book it seems it is indeed his book. The last pages also detail his plans.

I would trust this download: http://www.kevinislaughter.com/2011/anders-behring-breivik-2083-a-european-declaration-of-independence-manifesto/

After quickly reading through it, it seems legitimate. There are several details which has only recently been publicly known (for example that there has been a marihuana farm several years ago at the farm he bought. It also seems unlikely that someone would be able to write that document in such a short time for it to be fake. However, I do believe that we should not yet trust it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.58.123 (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Several Norwegian newspapers now report that he has written and published the book. Apparently it has also been sent to several Finnish right-wing politicians. See http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080671 and http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/07/23/nyheter/utoya/innenriks/drap/17433269/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.58.123 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can edit?

Since WP has long held that IP editors contribute some of the best edits and that forcing users to register will drive them away, I would like to know the radionale behind sprotecting this article? You can't really have this both ways. Either IP editors are a wonderous and productive group on the whole, or else they are not always.

On the other hand, if WP has identified certain areas in which IP editors are best excluded, then those areas (featured articles and rapidly changing wide-interest current events, for example), should be semi-protected immediately, as a matter of course, without waiting for vandalism and unhelpful bad editing to (inevitably) happen and clog the system. But such suggestions (as for sports playoff articles and natural disasters) have failed at WP:PERENNIAL, again and again.

It seems to me that the WP community is absolutely unable to learn from past experience in this matter, or to generalize any observation to change its policies. Which is to say, there's not much wisdom in this policy, as it stands. Here is yet one more illustration of that. I'm posting this to remind you-all who opposed any changes to sprotection policy, that this is your mess. SBHarris 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I've never heard that IPs do the best edits. Maybe they do. Other IPs provide the worst edits - that I know for very very sure. I think it depends on whether the article is political hotstuff (in which case IPs are proner to POV edits), and whether the topic is academical (in which some IP professors may partake). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Read and learn. [15] SBHarris 20:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That says nothing about the "best edits", it just says that IPs make productive edits. There is no judgement of quality whatsoever beyond good/bad. Go WP:SOAPBOX elsewhere. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the death count at Utöya

The 85 death count are possibly including people who were not hit, but still drowned. No sourze, but it is implied. 20:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)77.53.61.62 (talk)

They wouldn't have drowned if the attack did not happen, as such, the deaths were a direct consequence of the attack. --TheGreatDefective (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It still counts as murder. If I fire a gun at you, and you fall off a cliff trying to escape, I'm still guilty of murder. --Havermayer (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrest without resistance

He made no resistance when arrested according to sverigesradio.se. I'll see if I can find similar sources. Sveriges Radio is generally reliable and don't propagate rumors as facts. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=4615008 The explosives were placed in a car (as earlier suspected). He have admitted firing the weapons. The explosive fertilizers have been found at his private farm. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo War

According to [16], he views the European Union as a project to create "Eurabia" and claims the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was authorized by "criminal western European and American leaders". His anti-EU and anti-NATO views should be included in the article. JonFlaune (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a person called Andrew Berwick does. His identity with Anders Behring Breivik is perhaps a little speculative. The similarities looks compelling, however. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!)

Several sources say he wrote it. Apparently he's discussing it with police. http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/07/23/nyheter/utoya/innenriks/drap/17433269/ --Havermayer (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The NRK (TV) just referred to him having written it. The source cited above (Bergens Tidende) also states that he wrote it. JonFlaune (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Knights Templar 2083"

I just saw an article about a YouTube video posted July 22 by "Andrew Berwick", an anglicized version of Anders Breivik. It isn't really known who posted the video, but it shows this person holding a gun (apparently a copy of one from his Facebook page though). It also contains excerpts from a number of Wikipedia articles, e.g. Jacques de Molay. (No Creative Commons license attribution, I might add...)

My assumption is that J. Random Racist saw the suspect named in the news, and immediately tagged his pictures to the end of a long rant he'd already assembled; therefore the video in fact gives no information at all regarding the motivation of these attacks, and is essentially spam, and not relevant to this article. But is there a way to confirm or deny this? Wnt (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems fairly consistent with other stuff he has published, e.g. web comments. He is concerned about European and Norwegian culture being destroyed by multiculturalism and immigration - especially from moslem countries. He sees the labor party as the primary driving force behind the multiculturalism. Although you can't be sure, it seems it might be bona fide to me. Ketil (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Crap! The bastards at YouTube have already deleted the video! Before I had the chance to cast the counterspell! ("Non Angli, sed Angeli") Fortunately I use Video DownloadHelper and at least I have an archival backup copy for research purposes... Wnt (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a link to that youtube video in Breivik's "manifesto". There's also an alternative link: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v21123164bZCBQeZ8 .--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to this manifesto, or whatever source said the manifesto links to this video? That way we can mention it in the article as verifiably sourced. Wnt (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This manifesto is downloadable as a pdf here. 2.26.230.126 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)(i.e.)

Breitvik Confesses

According to NRK (norwegian state TV) Anders Behring Breivik has now konfessed to the bombings and the shootings. Not only that but it turns out that he has prepared a 1500 page ideological "interview with himself" about his acts and motivations... http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7724809 http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fnyheter%2Fnorge%2F1.7724809 (conditions="charges) http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7724781 http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fnyheter%2Fnorge%2F1.7724781 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.90.204 (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

AN/I User:ErrantX and Anders Behring Breivik

Admin, User:ErrantX has unilaterally, blanked, redirected here, and full protected the article Anders Behring Breivik. THis over the discussions in the two AfDs and the several merger discussions. An uninvolved admin opened this case. Please comment. That is not a place to discuss this article, but if the protection was according to rules. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_ErrantX_and_Anders_Behring_Breivik--Cerejota (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For interested parties; the redirection and move protection of Anders Behring Breivik has been disputed here. Silverseren^C 21:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it. Just barely though. Silverseren^C 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Acting national police chief Sveinung Sponheim"

The articles describes Sveinung Sponheim as "acting national police chief". The cited source does not describe him as such. Sponheim is visepolitimester (Deputy Chief of Police) in Oslo Police District. The national police chief is the Police Director. The acting national police chief would presumably be one of the deputy police directors, not a Deputy Chief of Police in Oslo Police District. JonFlaune (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Admitted perpetrator

Breivik has admitted to being the perpetrator of both attacks.[17] JonFlaune (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

English source: [18] JonFlaune (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik unprotected

Anders Behring Breivik unprotected and restored. If you disagree with this, please raise it at deletion review, as it has been subjected to multiple AfDs and survived, hence any change in status should be due to process happening. --Cerejota (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

User:Cerejota just removed the NPOV tag with an edit summary of tagcruft, no discussion on talk about neutrality, besides, this is a current event, there is no history to fight over. Obviously there is a neutrality discussion concerning this article, right above. The fact that this is a current event is... well, completely unrelated.

The neutrality of this article at present is disputed. Hence, the tag belongs here. I would appreciate it if it was restored.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for a tag. All content of the article is reliably sourced and relevant. Final stop. JonFlaune (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't see a reason for it because you're the one POV pushing. Others obviously disagree. That means a dispute exists. A tag makes the reader aware of the fact. Removing the tag is hence disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How about the above suggested, "appears to be associated with several different ideologies," and also mentioning that he might have been influenced by the ongoing controversy surrounding Israel/Palestine? I hate labels, but Zionist is not a dirty word, however I do understand why it might be inflammatory, also Christian, Pro-Gay, Fundamentalist, Right-Wing, I mean wow, this guy really knows what buttons to push, he's a psychopath going for his 15 minutes of fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.29.132 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we leave these kinds of controversial badly sourced speculations (especially with the "self-described" adjective) out? It's not essential information, this is a developing story, it's better not to give in to sensationalism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He carries out a politically motivated terrorist attack against the Labour Party. Exactly how is his political position "not essential"? JonFlaune (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Because he's nuts? Because he thinks he's a Knight Templar? This is like putting "Ted Kaczynski was an environmentalist" in the Unibomber article.

And let me repeat myself. No source has called him a "Zionist". That is your own made up nonsense. Show me a source which calls him that or remove this junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have shown you several sources including the JTA which refers to him as Zionist. Come up with sources yourself to prove the other sources are wrong. Also, he has been active on pro-Israeli websites in Norway for years, he clearly has some distinct political beliefs for carrying out a politically motivated attack that we need to describe. JonFlaune (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't. You've given two sources of which the first one says that his manifesto had some stuff which could be described as "Zionist" in it, and the other one which says he claimed to be a "Zionist". He also claimed to be a neo-Nazi and a Knight Templar. Neither of these sources itself call him a Zionist. This is a pretty simple to understand distinction. At this point it's hard to escape the conclusion that you're purposefully pretending not to understand what is being said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Where has he claimed to be a neo-Nazi? The sources I've seen state the opposite, he considers Nazism, Islam and the Left ("Cultural Marxists") to be his enemies. Quite frankly, many of his views are typical extreme neoconservative views (which has also been pointed out by sources[19]). JonFlaune (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The srilanka evidence is from a blog (http://alexbkane.wordpress.com/) people should be aware of this.Festermunk (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You have shown us several valid sources, all of which derive their information primarily from Breivik's manifesto. You are entirely correct that he has pro-Israeli views. However, from reading said manifesto it is very clear that Zionism is not a primary motivator for his actions, and is in fact but a fraction of his many political views. To mention Zionism in the introduction is misleading, because he is first and foremost an anti-multiculturalist. I agree his views should be detailed in the article, but the way the introduction is worded at the moment is bad precisely because Zionism is not his main political affiliation, and not why he killed all of those people. I suggest you leaf through the manifesto, particularly the handy Q/A section near the end. --Imperialles (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with rewording the introduction, I don't claim it's perfect, and his opposition to multiculturalism would be a good idea to include. But he states on p. 650 that

"I believe Europe should strive for: 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). Islam must be re-classified as a political ideology and the Quran and the Hadith banned as the genocidal political tools they are"

and on p. 1400:

"A modern cultural conservative (nationalist), anti-Jihad right wing alternative is emerging in Western Europe. A majority of Western European right wing groups are all anti-Islamisation and pro-Israel"

Here, he makes it pretty clear that 1) opposition to multiculturalism 2) support for Israel and 3) Islamophobia are key elements in his political thought.

An article in the Financial Times discusses the rise of "a new type of right-wing extremism" which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam. This is not just one crazy person, these are positions also held by others on the contemporary European far-right. JonFlaune (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, all of those elements are definitely part of his political... gumbo. I am not disputing that. My only concern is with the detail given in the introduction. It is my opinion that while his views should definitely be explained, the description given in the introduction should focus on his overarching ideology, which he himself has stated as being anti-multiculturalist and anti-Marxist. Since these views appear to form his primary (though, as you pointed out, not only) motivation for the attacks, they are the most immediately relevant for the purposes of the introduction. --Imperialles (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He uses the word marxist to refer to anyone who are not right-wing, so it's not anti-marxism as one usually would understand the word. Anyway, I don't quite see how anti-marxism is more prominent in his worldview than pro-Israel/zionism views. We could remove the description of his political views from the lead altogether and deal with them below. JonFlaune (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no basis for the anti-Marxism thing other than my own reading of the manifesto, which is irrelevant. Removing it from the intro would probably be the best solution for now. We can always add it back when it becomes clear what his exact motivations were—through for example a statement from Breivik in court. Frankly, the manifesto is somewhat sloppily written, and a direct explanation from the perpetrator would clear a lot of things up. --Imperialles (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead and instead added a direct quote from the Jpost in the section on his political views. JonFlaune (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Psycopathic killers are not political, he did this because he wants to get on the world stage. He evidently sought attention, and approval in some pretty unconventional places, sort of like a troll. Don't feed the troll, stay neutral 173.247.29.132 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine as your opinion, but it does not belong in WP. I've read through some of the manifesto, and I think anybody calling him a zionist must be trying to use this tragedy to further their personal political agenda, and I wish they'd stop. It's clear that his political motivations are cultural conservativism (meaning he wants to "protect" national culture from outside influence), perhaps nationalism, and Christianity. Other terms, like neo-nazi or zionist should, when notable, be cited with an author or publisher qualification ("XXX calls him an YYY") Ketil (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your reading of the manifesto is irrelevant, as is that of any editor. What we care about is what the reliable sources say. verifiability, not truth.--Cerejota (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How was he apprehended!?

How did this come to an end? Did he run out of ammo? Did he surrender when police came? Was he overtaken by people at the camp? How was he apprehended!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.19.51 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly he was approached by the SWAT team and surrendered without a fight. No word if he had run out of ammo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.55.119 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos

The Norsk language version of this article has better pictures. If you can read the captions, please grab one or two of these for our article. ike9898 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've collected a few commons images with English captions on Wikinews at n:Talk:Explosion in Downtown Oslo. --Xover (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

move protection?

Why? there is no edit war... also clumsily done, talk page can be moved...--Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No idea. However, there might be a case for semi-protection as there seems to be some vandalism going on by unregistered users. —Nakkisormi (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

We need a timeline showing the times the events took place. Is this a good source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8656055/Norway-attacks-timeline-of-tragedy.html ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwesterbeek (talk • contribs) 07:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Impact on markets" section

Are exchange rate and stock index changes of 1 percent or less really significant enough to be seen as a reaction to the bombings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.25.160 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I added this section purely because the report has been written stating that it is was influenced/caused by the events of today. The purpose of the entry is not to emphasise the degree of change, but rather that there was an impact. It would be up to the reader to determine the importance/significance of the data, while recording it down for future developments or reference. Eug.galeotti (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedish PM reaction; quote needed asap

Can we get a quote that also mentions the bombings in Oslo? It seems sort of weird that he only offers his condolences for the shootings at the camp on Utøya. --Rogington2 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of latest police press briefing

A quick summary of the information provided in the last police briefing to the press tonight (shown on NRK1). The shooter at Utøya is confirmed to be a Norwegian national, and police are indicating a strong probability that both incidents had the same perpetrator, based on eyewitness reports of his physical description and of his clothing (the fake police uniform). In the Oslo bombing there are 7 confirmed casualties, of which 4 have been identified, and 9–10 badly wounded. In the Utøya shooting the confirmed casualties are 10, but they caution that this number is likely to rise as they perform a closer sweep of the island.

Provided here mostly to serve as a reference point for information found in other news reports. --Xover (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I should also add it is no longer acceptable to speculate this is also Islamic terror. Norwegian news sources are now speculating that this an act of terrorism by the far right.[20] --Kuzwa (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reactions (1)

The Reactions section is repetitive and has WP:FLAGCRUFT. This always happens after major events, and should be pruned back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Second that motion. Especially the Qaddafi government of Libya - who cares what those fuckers think about terrorism? At the very least, let's not feed the Tripoli trolls! -- Y not? 22:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

because theyre notable regardless if you approve or not.

established practice has this, really need some consensus to take it out (and not just 2 people, one of which is jsut WP:IDONTLIKEITLihaas (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more than that - they're not even an internationally recognized government anymore. They've lost legitimacy, and there are sources for that. Fuck them, seriously. -- Y not? 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Get off the WP:SOAPBOX, troll.--Cerejota (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's still flagcruft. The Libyan entry is just particularly blatant in its complete irrelevance. So everyone said "we disapprove". How does this add anything to the article? Just summarize this in a single sentence. --dab (𒁳) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever they may have said and however we may disagree about its intent to take advantage of a terrorist event to have a swipe at NATO, it's still historically and contextually relevant. Why fight it? News is news, even when distasteful. Or does WP have a mandate now to be selectively political? Christopher (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The reactions list will only continue growing in the coming hours, there should be a separate additional page for reactions and response from world leaders just like what there was for the most recent Indian terrorist attacks.YuMaNuMa (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This section has growed like Topsy, and should be split off into a separate article, as it adds little to a reader's understanding of the events.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news

Please stop with all this "possibly" stuff. Wikipedia is not news. While statements might change quickly, we have standards and is not anything goes. Pleaseverify there is wide reporting, then post avoiding weasel words like "possibly". "Possibly" is not verified, and hence doesn't belong here. --Cerejota (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to be the first place I'd turn to get good information about a recent world event. Now it's crippled by Aspies who want to wait until the information has analysed for a month before writing anything down.

Here's some news for you. If information changes, you can actually edit Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if something is temporarily incorrect. The article will change.

This OCD compulsion to have something written in an online newspaper first is ridiculous - as witnessed by the guy above who had first-hand knowledge of the region but some douchebag wouldn't accept it. It reminds me of when Michael Jackson died, people kept reverting it because "TMZ is not a reputable news source". Show some common sense. 118.90.30.224 (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't omniscient. There's nothing that could be known for sure. The word, "possibly" is misleading in that it implies other information is known for certain. When you go to look for news you should already know that news is often extremely uncertain and inaccurate, and the only accurate news is news that has be completely corrected through parades of debates, at which point it is more likely called history than news. Real news is always uncertain and thus inevitably strongly biased and people can only get used to it. 173.180.214.58 (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

More care, please

A number of editors are adding or amending facts, apparently without reading the preceding or following sentences, leading to nonesense like:

A man impersonating a police officer fired gunshots at an annual Workers' Youth League (AUF) youth summer camp [...] A Caucasian man, described as "tall and blond", and impersonating a police officer, fired gunshots at the campers.

Please take more care. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Tense

Please can we avoid switching between tenses; specifically "was" and "has been"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? Can't you work out the difference? You can always try simple English wikipedia if you find the fine points of perfect tenses too challenging.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Because their use in the article were grammatically incorrect. Meanwhile WP:AGF an WP:NPA have not been suspended. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

pictures

We need pictures from the shootings, all we have is Oslo. Are there any free sources?--Cerejota (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman!!!!!!!

Multiple sources are saying Anders Behring Breivik is the same person as Fjordman, a well known anti-Islamist blogger and commentator. see Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Fjordman?. If that is the case, he will definitely be known on his own. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be total misinformation. I am striking out my comment. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely to be true. Fjordman's blog says he lives in Trøndelag, but ABB lived in Oslo/Rena. LarsMarius (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, then the BLP1E reason for the merge is out of the door - this guy was anonymously notable before the attacks, and hence not notable for a single event. This is why I advice patience. --Cerejota (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any source for this claim? --hydrox (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman is most certainly not identical with ABB. I say this beacuse Fjordman has posted comments over at the Islam-critical blog Gates of Vienna throughout the events, as he has before. [21] – Bellatores (t.) 02:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this. It seems that this claim originates from a neo-Nazi website. It's rubbish. As pointed out above, Fjordman has posted several comments at Gates of Vienna long after the attacks.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

True or not, the Norwegian Wikipedia is also including this claim, see no:Fjordman. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Norwegian Wikipedia is not citing any sources, either.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ANd wikipedia is not a reliable source is one of the oldest parts of WP:RS...--Cerejota (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The original source for the claim is the Swedish on-line paper Realisten, see Anders Behring Breivik gripen för terrordåden i Oslo Realisten is affiliated with the Party of the Swedes, so maybe you can call the source "neo-Nazi".

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Spree killing

Is this classified as a spree killing? If so, it's the worst one on record with more than 87 victims, the previous worst being 44. Somebody should update the Spree_killer table if it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatDefective (talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, " spree killer is someone who embarks on a murderous assault on two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations." -- Luke ^Talk 03:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, but wasn't sure if the amount of time taken counted as "Short".--TheGreatDefective (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the location part, as the shooting was only on Utoeya Island. -- Luke ^Talk 03:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoopsies, thought it had been verified that he planted the bomb too. Feckin' rumour mill is trying to confuse me. I read somewhere that seemed somewhat legit that it was a fertiliser bomb, which he procured the ingredients for from his farming company. Anyway.. When/if it were to be verified he perpetrated both attacks, it would be a killing spree. Agreement? --TheGreatDefective (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If it was the shooter who indeed plant the explosive, then yes, it would be classified as a spree killer. -- Luke ^Talk 03:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not our call to make. RS are calling it a "shooting spree", but not the attacks a "killing spree" except for some tabloids - so hold yer horses. It might be the editors are still in their editing rooms, because the monstrosity of this thing does seem to call for tabloid language in the regular news.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this not the worst shooting mass murder ever, in terms of number killed? I'm sure it's at least the worst in Europe... 2.27.108.226 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ansar al Jihad al Alami

According to the Guardian Newspaper, a group calling itself Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami claimed responsibility. Guardian, Norway attacks suggest political motive --Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Same article says that the claim was later withdrawn, so I assume that's bullshit, put simply. --TheGreatDefective (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The See Also Section

Just would like to note that the 2010 Stockholm bombings really are not similar to this attack at all, other than it was another Scandinavian country. That attack WAS perpetrated by Islamist radicals, whilst this one almost certainly was perpetrated by far-right wing radicals. I don't really know if there are any terrorist attacks that are similar to it off the top of my head. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Politically, I don't see much any difference. Both attacks seem to have been perpetrated by political extremists for political reasons. Also, both attacks involved a bomb. And more importantly, both involved a Nordic capital that was not prepared for such attacks. BTW. Oklahoma City bombing is very similiar to this when it comes to the flavor of political extremism. --hydrox (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Hydrox, but will add we should see what the RS say. The media is opining as we speak, and we will get articles from global RS like CNN, BBC, Reuters etc doing timelines etc. They always do, is not like this is the first or the last. I have read and seen a few of the sources compare Stockholm and this even after islamists were discounted as perps, using your very argument, so I think RS support you.

Once we get this baby to GA, am writing a howto essay on terrorist attacks, has become my thing :).--Cerejota (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why remove this section? I think it would be appropriate to link to the Spree killer article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.179.209.42 (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This was before Spree killer was added under the See Also category. --Kuzwa (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

the article should be renamed

it should be renamed to the july 22 attacks. that will also make it easier to find through the search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the fact that they occurred in Norway is central, and should remain in the title. You could possibly redirect "July 22 attacks" though. --Pstanton (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

it is certainly a solution but the article on the terrorist attacks against world trade center is called september 11 attacks. _{Unsigned comment left by 84.208.86.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)}

I can easily think of a heap of counter-examples, but just browsing this category is much easier. --hydrox (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik - White Right-Wing Terrorist

Just so people know, this wasn't simply a bombing, it was two attacks, and the terrorist is a white right-wing man who targeted a political party camp and shot students there. See: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/22/7143472-death-toll-jumps-suspect-still-being-questioned --Radical Mallard (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the article? we have been dealing with this for more than 12 hours dude, we know.--Cerejota (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) several people in norway believe that the bomber was also the shooter.

Guess now that it has been discovered that the perpetrator is white, instead of being called a "terrorist" he will be brushed off as a "madman". Because only non-"white" Muslims do terror, amirite? 98.80.22.19 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX. Right church, wrong pew.  Chzz  ►  06:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You sadly right. I oppose the use of the term "terrorist" in wikipedia for this same reason. Its called countering systemic bias. However, this ain't a sandbox either, just sayin'--Cerejota (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see... then I withdraw my objections.98.80.22.19 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I CALL HIVEMIND CHZZ! Except you were funny :P--Cerejota (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If whites who bomb are not called terrorists while muslims are, how would a white muslim be classified? Really, as far as my media experience goes, mass murders who use guns are much more likely to be called madmen and those who use bombs are almost always called terrorists, though the extremely complex official definitions aren't admitting it. 173.180.214.58 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the difference in the motivation? ie politically/religiously motivated = terrorist, other motivations = madman? I'd say if this guy's motivations were as they appear to be at this point in time, he's pretty clearly a terrorist. 90.213.139.19 (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

GLock 16?

Is there even such a thing as a Glock 16? I can't find it in the Glock pistol article or on the company web site. I see Financial Times writes it, but that could be a mistake. Probably it was a Glock 17 – a relatively common gun in Norway. I found a couple of sources that call it a Glock 17: [22] (Danish), [23] (Norwegian) Lampman (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I took Glock 16 one from the FT. If there are other sources, then Glock 17 it is. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The manifesto talks about plans to buy and to apply for a Glock 17, but refers to owning a Glock 34. Ketil (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Since 2005 he was member of Oslo Pistol club but did not fullfil the requirements for obtaining a pistol. However, he owned a Glock 34 illegaly. According to his manifest, he trained a lot during winter 2010, bought a Glock 17 in mid January 2011 for 700 euro and 4x 30 round magazines for 230 euro... --Dias87 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not irrelevant Op-Ed

Explain how it is irrelevant to add the Guardian's report on the terrorist attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valenti85 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is or what it's about, so I will lay out the problems with your edits.

• Removal of sourced material-the source you removed is a Norwegian one, and directly relevant to the current event.
• Addition of Sri Lankan material, even though sourced, is irrelevant, Sri Lanka is not remotely relevant to the current event.

You (apparently) just got here. If you don't familiarize yourself with how things work here, you're going to have a difficult time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a bad faith edit. Please be more polite to new contributors and explain the problem without what could be construed as a veiled threat(I know it was not intended as such, it just could easily be taken that way). i kan reed (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Parents Divorced

I read where his parents got divorced when he was one year old. Should it be mentioned that he was a child of divorce, since such childen can have serious adjustment problems? 69.236.142.83 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On the page about ABB the person, it might be relevant as part of his background. So far, I've seen no secondary sources citing divorce as a contributing factor, and I don't expect to see any. Ketil (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Whereabouts of PM and cabinet?

The text as it stands gives the impression that Stoltenberg was there when it happened. No media report I've seen indicates that any of the top government were present. Are there any information on this? If not, this should be reworded. Ketil (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked for this in detail, but the only report I can recall that specifically mentioned the location of an individual government member was one that stated that the finance minister was on holiday in Denmark. Other than saying that none were among the dead, there doesn't seem to be any mention of their location - possibly related to the fact that the police advised the PM (and presumably other government ministers) not to reveal his location to the media. It would not surprise me if the location of key people during the attack will remain out of the media until the authorities are completely certain Breivik acted alone or they have any accomplice(s) in custody. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Stoltenberg has in his statements made it clear that he was not present at Regjeringskvartalet when the bomb went off, but he was apparently somewhere in Oslo (there were some comments to the effect that he heard the blast). There have been no reports of ministers or members of parliament being present at the bombing, and I would very much have expected this to be reported in the press fairly quickly and loudly. At Utøya, Gro Harlem Brundtland was present earlier in the day—and Breivik has stated that he had intended to attack her, but was delayed—but she had left Utøya prior to the shooting. --Xover (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dagens Næringsliv today writes that Stoltenberg was in the Prime Minister's residence in Oslo at the time of the bombing, and was immediately taken to a bunker in the residence. Dagens Næringsliv. --84.210.77.185 (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Trond Berntsen

The Guardian has this: "A little more on Crown Princess Mette-Marit's stepbrother, who was among those killed on Utøya. A court spokeswoman has told AP that his name was Trond Berntsen, and that he was the son of Mette-Marit's stepfather, who died in 2008." he was an off-duty police officer stationed on the island. I don't know how notable/usable this is. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It will become notable eventually. According to Norwegian TV reports he was the first or second person killed on Utøya. According to an eyewitness report, when Breivik arrived to the ferry to the island, the local ferry manager had to phone out to the island to get the ferry back to the mainland. Monica Bøsei, the manager for the campsite at Utøya, went with the ferry to accompany the “police man” back, and during the crossing appears to have become suspicious of Breivik (he is described as uncommunicative and standoffish). On arriving at the island she went straight to Hovedhuset (the main building) to talk to Trond Berntsen after which Breivik gunned them both down. The ferry's captain was Bøsei's husband and their 16 year old daughter was also present with a friend. The daughter's friend was killed, but Bøsei's husband managed to get their daughter to safety. This should be easy to source once international media starts picking up such details. --Xover (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lower casualty number?

same source as above: The death toll from Friday's attacks could be lower than previously thought, according to Norwegian police. "From what we now know, it looks like we will revise down the number of people killed [on the island]," said the head of Norway's police force, Oeystein Maeland. Until now, police said Breivik had shot dead 86 people on Utøya and killed a further seven in a bomb explosion in central Oslo. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

how's that possible? They included the missing into the death toll? --93.137.142.100 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember the priority was rescuing people and getting them to hospital, rather than getting accurate numbers. What often happens is that people are counted twice, and this is not corrected until a full list of names is drawn up. Disaster areas are chaotic scenes and precise knowledge of events takes time to piece together. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

...which is pretty much what did happen. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

document.no and the aftenposten

In the article the Aftenposten as being taken as valid source that describe document.no as "Israel friendly" site. I found no such description in any other media source. It seem that all other sources describe the site as anti Islamic and anti immigration. Also, the Aftenposten published year or two ago headline in which it was claimed that Obama was bought by rich Jews[24]. He also published anti Semitic caricatures. In any case, whether the site or some of the users active there are Israel friendly does not describe the purpose of the site which is to oppose Islam and Islamic immigration to Europe. I remove the definition that the Aftenposten give to document.no. I think that right wing if enough.--Gilisa (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wounded" parameter

The "wounded" parameter in the infobox is not a valid parameter, and according to what is mentioned there and on the main page, there are 96 deaths. As far as I know, no more than 7 people died in the Oslo bombing, meaning that if there have been 96 deaths, 89 of them come from the Utøya shooting. Could someone correct the information as to avoid confusion? Thanks, HeyMid (contribs) 11:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Police are warning that the number of casualties will have to be adjusted (down, it seems) and that they are planning to hold a press conference after the arraignment hearing that is currently in progress, so we may have some more up to date numbers then. --Xover (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

86 dead in total

According to this recent news article http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/07/25/nyheter/innenriks/terror_i_oslo/terrorangrepet/17446546/ (25.07.2011 10:58) the death count, as stated by the police, has been adjusted down to 86 in total, and could be adjusted further down. --84.234.215.241 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• The article says the number is still 86 at Utøya, not in total (that is still 93). But you are right the number may be adjusted down. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry. I'm embarassed now lol --84.234.215.241 (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, now the introductory paragraph says "68" even though the citations still support 86 or 87. If the number has been officially revised downward, that should be referenced. --Haruo (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Arraignment, threats of further violence, other developments

I don't have an appropriate English reference link for any of this yet, but it comes via a reliable source. Breivik has been arraigned on terrorist charges, pleading not-guilty to all counts. He has also apparently claimed to have accomplices in the form of two active cells that may launch further attacks. I'm dubious of this claim, but I think ti should be added anyway once we have sufficient sourcing. We also have our first candid picture of him, found on this article:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080747

I suggest that we use it to replace his pre-existing photos, or at least some, given that they now arguably conflict with Wikipedia's licensing guidelines as we now have a free-equivalent, and as per the concerns raised about the pictures in a section above, qualms which now seem even more valid since it's been made clear Breivik had the photos taken professionally as part of his 'marketing' approach to his attacks. Snow Rise (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll crop and upload it.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Snow Rise (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notes

There is an error in the notes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.0.109 (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)