Talk:Norwegian Defence League

Caveat lector

Having translated this article from the article on the Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia but also having made some additional edits, which I probably will continue doing, it is my obligation to inform that I have had some contact with this organization, though I'm not a member. I have also had some contact with Ronny Alte who is its current media spokesperson and by some media at least seen as the leader. Alte is currently on my Facebook friends list. __meco (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible COI major rewrite reverted

I have now reverted a major rewrite of the article undertaken by fellow Norwegian Wikipedian Filippusson (talk · contribs). The rewrite was submitted with the following edit summary: (cleanup; language, content). Firstly, I find it very unwise that such a major rewrite should be attempted in the midst of an ongoing AfD discussion. Secondly, I really disapprove of such one-edit complete overhauls of already decent, full-length, articles as they can make assessment of the actual changes being made difficult to make. This concern is of course amplified when the edit summary makes no references to the substantive changes of the edit.

Having now made an initial analysis of the changes introduced in the edit by Filippusson, my concern is amplified manifold. What this now appears to be in my view, is an attempt to radically slant the article by burying and removing information that could be seen as damaging to the NDL itself. I have therefore made a specific inquiry on the user's talk page requesting disclosure of any conflict of interest that would exist.

A description of the changes with relevance to my suspicion of biased editing are as follows:

1. Burying prominent mention of Anders Behring Breivik's connection to the organization, making it less visible to the casual reader.
2. Removing information that Breivik's made the first known initiative to establish the NDL.
3. Removing information about past leader Lena Adreassen's nazi affiliation.

I particularly find the edit insidious in that it also adds a lot of new, detailed information about the NDL's early history, which would by a cursory assessment make the edit look like just a constructive amendment of the article. I'm wondering, however, if perhaps the level of detail about these early tumultuous changes aren't too much detail. That aside, I do acknowledge there is considerable new material that should be earnestly considered for inclusion.

To sum up, I seriously question why this editv which in such an underhanded way makes a radical change to several controversial topics, was made. Why were none of these issues declared? Why wasn't there a talk page post explaining the rationale and substantive consequences of the changes? __meco (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification made to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. __meco (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Notification made to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. __meco (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you make an unnecessary big deal out of my single edit on this page. Most importantly, my edit cleaned up the rather poor language and format of the current article. I see that I probably have removed some content that should not have been removed, and you could have fixed it by simply reinserting it into the article (instead of entering the issue into Wikipedia's noticeboards before there had even been any kind of discussion). I suggest that the version be reverted back to my version which is superior in language and format, and that in turn content that I mistakenly removed from the old version should be put back into the article. —Filippusson (t.) 12:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the second point you mention is incorrect, as I did not remove the information, but merely moved it to another place in the article. Given what the sources (VG) says about the third point, your interpretation is also misleading. According to VG, Andreassen's only "nazi affiliation" consisted of her having a boyfriend who got help from PST to get out of a neo-Nazi group. —Filippusson (t.) 12:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If both editors are willing to discuss changes here and consider suggestions (and ontinue the pleasantly civil tone of the discussion) I suggest the matter can probably be laid to rest here rather than on the noticeboards. Babakathy (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite satisfied with that. I made posts at the two noticeboards not so much to elicit intervention or conflict resolution, more as a heads-up for interested and competent editors to be able to oversee the process here on the talk page of the article. __meco (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your "single edit" was a comprehensive rewrite which would make it very demanding for editors who were not intimately familiar with the original text to compare the old and the new text. You should find it easy to agree that the way that "single edit" was made, other editors would be at a disadvantage attempting to assess the changes. Although I make an effort to apply good faith, the convergence of unfortunate factors in this matter still leaves me with a residual suspicion that all may not be as forthright and innocent as you now profess. For that reason also, I am opposed to your suggestion that we revert to your version of the article which you claim is superior. Instead I propose we take the time necessary to discuss the changes you want to see, one by one or more comprehensively as long as the complexity and number of changes isn't overwhelming. If you agree to be working within the consensus-building model on which Wikipedia fundamentally operates, consenting to this should be easy. I also note that you have neglected so far to address the request I raised on your talk page that relates to conflict of interest. I make the call again that you address this concern. __meco (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any conflict of interest, as I have never been engaged or in contact with any organised political activity whatsoever in real life (other than having voted in elections). Now please stop making completely groundless accusations just because you disagree with an edit. —Filippusson (t.) 15:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have made no accusation. I believe I had good reason to ask you to clarify your position. But that is not an accusation, and you should know better than to throw that in my face. __meco (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll now try to edit the article in smaller steps and with more detailed explanations. —Filippusson (t.) 19:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! __meco (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing edits – February/March 2012

I propose we use this section to discuss the ongoing changes which Filippusson wants to make. I want to start discussing this edit.

1. Why is it appropriate not to have a mention of Breivik's early initiative for the establishment of the NDL at the front of the "History" section? This seems very important to me, so I find that it should be mentioned there as well as discussed in more detail in the later section focusing entirely on Breivik's connection to the NDL. In Filippusson's edit summary it is stated "move 2009 Breivik post to appropriate section since there is no evidence he actually had any part in its founding." I don't see the connection between the edit action and this rationale. There shouldn't be a necessity to assert that Breivik took part in the establishment of the NDL. The fact that he is the first person to have called for its founding should suffice, in my opinion.
2. Why should we change the section header from "Membership of Anders Behring Breivik" to "Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik"? I find the first header to better indicate the content of this section.
3. Why is the text referencing Breivik's rationale for the need to establish the NDL taken out, i.e. to counter the perceived abuse against cultural conservatives from the two left-radical groups Blitz and SOS Rasisme?

Let's start discussing this before moving further ahead. __meco (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Because nobody would ever have cared or made mention of this had it not been for the 22/7 terrorist attacks, when Breivik became a publicly known person. Putting it at the start of a historic narrative in an encyclopedia is just to anachronistic in my opinion. It's thus better suited in the context of the section about Breivik and the 22/7 aftermath.
2. It's not a very big deal to me what the section is titled, change it back if you want.
3. I took it out because I'm not sure if it is appropriate to include it in this particular article; but it would certainly be appropriate in the article on Breivik himself. Perhaps my notion is wrong in this case, I don't know. In any case it's just some supplementary details, so it is no big deal whether it stays or not. —Filippusson (t.) 20:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1. I cannot see the logic in your argument that presenting a complete chronology is anachronistic. The first ever mention of starting up the NDL, shouldn't that go first in the historical rundown of the events leading up to it's founding and its early, tumultuous vicissitudes? I think this should be mentioned briefly there, in addition to a more context-rich discussion in the later section.
2. OK, I'll change it back.
3. I find it to be equally related to the NDL as to Breivik, so I would like to have it included. We can discuss it further or await more opinions if you like.

__meco (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I will await changing back the header for the Breivik section. When I look at the article's table of content I find it quite messy, or accidental, and we should reorganize the sections somehow. The text sections are currently organized in the following pattern:

1 History

1.1 Protest on April 9, 2011

1.2 Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik

1.3 EDL protest, September 2011

2 Membership

2.1 Discussion about killings

I find the two parent sections, "History" and "Membership" to be the sore point. Any suggestions for an improvement here? __meco (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the particular issue, as it is absolutely normal for articles to have more than one main section containing prose, and I don't think there is any reason to change it unless you have a better suggestion. Otherwise, I question the relevance of including "The Norwegian Defence League supports the nation of Israel." in the lead. I don't see why such a side-issue is important enough to put in the lead. —Filippusson (t.) 22:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As the article currently stands all is basically history. The membership section which you created was primarily splitting the previously integral history section into two parts. There is one sentence at its beginning discussing the member count. Then the rest, including the preexistent level 3 header section about "Discussions about killings," mostly details another incident in the organization's history. Having the Membership header containing all of this isn't representative of what the section contains, simply. If we should have a separate membership section, it should not contain the discussions about killings incident. That belongs in the history section, where it previously resided. Separating these different aspects would require some rewrite, and possibly also some duplication or reference to information mentioned elsewhere. __meco (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The NDL has offered its positions on few issues except its opposition to Muslim immigration. In fact. it supporting Israel may be the only one. I find that important. Should it be mentioned in the lead section? I placed it there for lack of a better place. If we create a section for political opinions or initiatives, we could put it there, I suppose. __meco (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the PSTs trusselvurdering (Commons) as far as I can see actually does not mention the NDL specifically by name. If I'm not incorrect, part of the article should be rewritten to reflect that. —Filippusson (t.) 22:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I made the same observation when I translated the article, but I didn't do anything about it then. That may be original synthesis on the part of an editor at the Bokmål Wikipedia, so we should perhaps simply take it out, that is, unless we can find some other sources providing the same information. __meco (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Dagbladet-source says that PST named the NDL at its press conference, and not in the actual report. Seems it would be appropriate to keep it after all. —Filippusson (t.) 15:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not having received a response from you to my most recent post on the first issue of mentioning early in the article, i.e. at the start of the History section, Breivik's 2009 proposal to establish a Norwegian offshoot of the EDL I will go ahead and re-insert the text which you have removed. I'll wait a bit in case you want to discuss this further. Similarly I will also attempt the reorganizing of the Membership section which I have discussed. __meco (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort in reorganizing the Membership section, however I found that the name you chose was less than descriptive, so I changed it to reflect the content of the section. I also restructured the text further which I think gives it even better clarity. Your reaction to this is welcomed, and I will wait a bit longer still for your would-be opinion on other issues which I have raised, before going ahead with changes as announced. __meco (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Having waited a full week for your return to this discussion I have ventured to make the announced changes to the article. I'm still glad to discuss this further here if you wish. __meco (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, but I have been rather busy lately. Nonetheless, I staunchly oppose that the article start with a story about the terrorist posting a message on a forum before the group was formed. Here is why; first of all, I seriously doubt that the terrorist was either the first or only person to "propose" the launching of a "Norwegian Defence League" on the internet in the time between it was actually formed, and from when the original EDL started to get noticed (based on its fairly big current membership count). The second follows the first, but also noting that the sole reason why an otherwise completely uninteresting forum-post is mentioned, is because it gained notority following 22/7. Since there is no evidence that the forum-post (nor the terrorist) had anything whatsoever to do with the actual formation of the existing NDL, writing it as the very introduction of the history of the NDL is nothing but a coatracking of the article with the terrorist. Yes, it is of course an interesting piece of information, but only in the context of the terrorist, not in the context of the history of the NDL of which it has no real relevance at all. —Filippusson (t.) 23:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Before Ronny Alte unfriended and blocked me on Facebook I rather mused at his consistency in not naming Anders Behring Breivik by name but only referring to him as "the terrorist". I found that odd, and I still do. I apologize for starting out on a digression. Now to the points at hand. Whatever you may think is out there on the Internet, that's speculation on your part, which you're free to exercise, but by Wikipedia norms that would be entirely inadmissible for advancing an argument against using what is certifiably out on the net, as attested to by reliable sources. I'm not saying that your argument has no merit, it may well constitute a reasonable assumption during a lunch break discussion, but it doesn't belong in a discussion of what should or shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Now, seeing past that first half of your post, you posit that since there's no known connection between Breivik proposing the establishment of an NDL in December 2009 and the actual establishing of the organization not long thereafter, this does not belong at the front of the section on the NDL's formation. That presupposes a much too narrow limitation on what belongs in the history discussion of any entity or phenomenon. It is certainly admissible, and very common, that zeitgeist, preambles, defining moments, precursory movements or processes, etc. be discussed as part of the history, or pre-history, of the article subject. We are not bound by the date of establishment in what we can or should discuss. We can, and should, provide a context whenever possible. Now, as for your use of the coatracking meme, I've looked at that essay and it occurs to me that you, like I've seen others do before you, misconstrue the meaning of this term somewhat similar to how I also notice a trend of similar contortion of Wikipedia guidelines and policies (not to mention essays) when it comes to asserting the removal of any negative information in biographical articles claiming it violates WP:BLP. Had you written "conflating" instead of "coatracking" you would at least be clear in your writing. As it stands that sentence doesn't really make sense. In short, I refute your assertion that the early mention of Breivik's call for the formation of an NDL should be labeled a coatrack, as this term is being understood in Wiki parlance. I believe I have addressed all your points, and I see no valid argument emerging from them. __meco (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess Atle must have infiltrated the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) and the Prime Minister too, as it was they who first started the trend of referring to Breivik as "the terrorist." Of course you could with no problem have seen that I personally have been inconsequential in my use everywhere except in my last post, but I'll nonetheless be nice enough to look past your poorly hidden defamatory insinuation. I don't know what it was that made you post your last rambling message, but you obviously failed to answer my most important point; namely that there is no evidence whatsoever that Breivik's forum-post that was made a full year (not "not long thereafter" as you falsely claim) before the NDL was actually founded has any relevance at all with the history of the NDL as an actual group. —Filippusson (t.) 18:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed this adequately in my previous post. __meco (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you haven't. I need you to show me what the significance is to the NDL itself of a post made on an internet-forum a year before the group was founded. Unless you can show that it has had something to do with the formation of the NDL, there is no legitimate reason to have it there whatsoever. —Filippusson (t.) 20:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Then we shall simply have to disagree. I have provided a full rationale to justify the current presentation of this issue in the article. Unless you want to wait for more people to get involved in this discussion on their own initiative I suggest you ask for a third opinion or make a request for comments or any of the other low-level conflict resolution avenues available. __meco (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now requested a third opinion on the issue. —Filippusson (t.) 15:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I also want to notice that there is no sources that support your claim that the forum-post even was the "first documented initiative" for establishing an "NDL", and that you insist on using a collection of entries on the blog document.no as a reference in a manner that violates both WP:BLOGS and WP:OR. Obviously, you also try your best to create an analogy between the formation of the NDL and the forum-post, although this is not supported by any sources whatsoever. —Filippusson (t.) 15:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the existence of those forum (not blog) posts at Document.no are referenced with two reliable sources other than the forum website itself. Also note that the link to Document.no is not to Breivik's original forum posts but to a collation republished by the forum publishers. __meco (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, now you've had your go. Can we now treat this as a content dispute and use the appropriate avenues for resolving the issue rather than obstinately reverting each other? I have already presented some of the options, now is the time to make use of them. That is, unless you're satisfied with the minor shuffling and rephrasing I just made and we can leave the matter to rest. __meco (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Before you ask, a reference for the formation of the NDL; "NDL ble stiftet i årsskiftet 2010/11." (Dagbladet) —Filippusson (t.) 18:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent. I have updated the article with information from that article and another two articles mentioned in it. __meco (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm responding to the 3O notice. Please note that I do not read Norwegian. Please say now if you think that's a problem. I'll be back shortly with comments. Cheers. FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

1. The sentence in the section "Formation" which reads The first documented initiative for establishing a Norwegian sister organization to the English Defence League had occurred in a forum post by Anders Behring Breivik, the accused Norwegian spree killer, in December 2009. is not relevant to this section and should be removed. This is because there does not appear to be any information which links this post to the formation of the NDL.
2. In the section "Membership of...", the sentence There Breivik proposes to establish a Norwegian version of the English Defence League. seems completely redundant (it just repeats information that is in the previous sentence) and should be removed.
3. The Dagbladet source does not appear to support anything in the text of these two sentences. The information in them is supported solely by the Channel 4 News source and the document.no source. The Dagbladet footnote should therefore be removed.
4. Whether the NDL like it or not, a key factor in their notability is their link to Anders Breivik. Readers are likely to come to the article looking for that, and we should give it to them in full. So, I disagree with Filippusson's view that Breivik's post on document.no is not relevant to the history of the NDL.
5. However, it ought to be made clearer that this posting is not known to be connected to the actual formation of the NDL.
6. The phrase "first documented initiative" does not appear to be supported by any source, and so the sentence should be rephrased to avoid making this claim.
7. Even though I think the information in dispute would be best retained, the sourcing might be improved. The Channel 4 News article does not actually mention the NDL. A source that did would be better. However, the Channel 4 News article is still acceptable to use.

Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

1. If your contention is, and much of Filippusson's reasoning has followed this train of reasoning, that the problem is that Breivik's December 2009 forum post can't be directly linked to the formation of the NDL and therefore it shouldn't be under the section header "Formation", then would either of you object to it being placed directly in front of that section? Then it would be directly below the "History" header. There could of course be an added header called "Early discussion" or something similar, except it would be rather contrary to the MoS to have a section consisting of only one sentence.
2. I don't see that as a repetition, more as an elaboration. Back to back the two sentences now read: The first documented initiative for establishing a Norwegian sister organization to the EDL had also originated in a forum post by Breivik on the Norwegian website Document.no on December 6, 2009. There Breivik proposes to establish a Norwegian version of the English Defence League. But if rather than tweaking the existing text we decide simply to remove that sentence, I'm fine with that.
3. There seems to have been some commingling of the references. I'll locate the right reference for this and replace the erroneous one.
4. No comment
5. Although I agree that would be preferable, adding this would be original synthesis in my opinion. I'm in the same predicament on another article talk page also, so this is a general problem which I'm at a loss to address satisfactorily.
6. How about instead of "first documented initiative" it reads "an early initiative"?
7. Well, I added the Channel 4 article having followed a link from an article in a Norwegian news article so I'll expedite my search for that missing reference.

__meco (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You can't create an "early discussion" section when there are no sources that treat the subject at all. (It would be akin to making an "early history" section of a history-subject based solely on original interpretation of a random archaelogical finding.) All you have is one forum post that is completely random, all but had it not been for something that happened a long time after, in a different context. We have no idea whether it was the first or only forum post that someone posted on the internet in 2009/10, because no sources discuss it on the premises on the NDL, only in the context of Breivik. We have had a third opinion now, and consensus is to remove your homemade analogy. Until you can come up with sources that assert the significance to the NDL of the forum post, the sentence will be removed. —Filippusson (t.) 11:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You present the discussion on this page, including its development subsequent to the intervention of a third-opinion contributor, in a completely skewed manner. As both I and FormerIP write in numeral 1 above, the issue seems to be whether its inclusion under one particular section header is appropriate, not whether the information that Breivik called for the establishment of a Norwegian version of the EDL in 2009 should be presented prominently or at the beginning of the history section. In fact, FormerIP explicitly rejects your position, writing (among other things): "So, I disagree with Filippusson's view that Breivik's post on document.no is not relevant to the history of the NDL." As I pointed out in my response to FormerIP, even you centered on this in your earlier argument. There is certainly no consensus (a 2/3 majority in a group of 3 people wouldn't in any case constitute a consensus as required by Wikipedia's guidelines) for what you want: have the information only appear buried in the section on Breivik's membership in the NDL. As for what it is exactly you mean when you refer to my "homemade analogy" I'm at a loss. Perhaps you can clarify this point? Obviously I am reverting you back again, so please, don't try to force your version onto the article instead of committing to building a consensus here, on the talk page. If one outside voice wasn't sufficient, we can go to the next level and open a request for comments. __meco (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is okay to note that Breivik had posted the message on a forum in the section on Breivik's membership in the NDL. What is not okay however, is to suggest for the reader a false narrative, not supported by any sources, that the forum post was the big progenitor to the formation of the NDL. That is a narrative and an analogy that does not exist anywhere but in your personal version of this Wikipedia-article. —Filippusson (t.) 13:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're addressing the contention so directly. Although adding the mention of Breivik's early forum post at the beginning of the history section risks being mistaken for an event directly leading to the later establishment of the NDL, both I and, if I read FormerIP correctly, the 3O contributor agree that this should be presented prominently. That is a problem. I see that, you see that, and FormerIP sees that. We can all agree on that. Now, what do we do about it? Do we simply remove the mention from the beginning of the history section? What we cannot do, I think, is to furnish the information with a caveat lector not to read this particular information as part of the organizational history of the NDL. That would in my view violate the rules prohibiting original synthesis. I do agree that having this piece of information out there, at the very beginning of the chronological narrative, is problematic. I welcome constructive ideas for a solution to this dilemma. Perhaps we could ask at the NPOV noticeboard for ideas? I don't have a good answer from my current understanding of how WP policies constrict our room to maneuver here. Do you think mentioning it in the lede section might be a viable compromise? __meco (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose we continue discussing in the newly created section below #Breivik's 2009 forum post that which deals with this issues only. __meco (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Date format

I would like to in addition point to the date format issue. Meco seem to insist that this article use the US American MDY format, while logic dictates that the British DMY be used considering the issue in question. The subject of this article is not in any way related to the US, but has direct links to the UK. According to regular Wikipedia notion, the spelling/format most closely related to the subject in question is to be used for any article. —Filippusson (t.) 20:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

First, if we are to switch date formats we should do it in an orderly fashion. Second, I don't really see that the connection between NDL and EDL is any persuasive reason for either British English spelling or formats otherwise. I believe there's also a precedent for following the preferences made by the article creator, me, who uses American English more or less consistently. Anyway, if we should discuss this further we should look at what the National varieties of English MoS section has to say on this. __meco (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

American English vs. British English

The article is written in American English which is the English variant which I as the article creator use. Thus also the MDY date format is applied as is discussed in the section above. I believe that the National varieties of English MoS section gives clear support for this. The argument for British English has not been fully expounded although User:Filippusson asserts that "logic dictates that the British DMY be used considering the issue in question." I made a request for an editnotice to be placed on the article (see here) which was declined for now in order that support for this measure be garnered on this page. That is the purpose of this post. First i would point to how the applicable guideline (cited above) appears to support American English as the preferred English variant used by the article creator. Though the organization itself has chosen British English spelling for the word Defence and has a strong connection with the English Defence League I assert that this does not sufficiently constitute the strong ties to British English which is discussed in MOS:TIES and as also elaborated by several examples given there.

Given support for my rationale above, I still see how casual contributors would not observe the preexistent language variant and add British English text, and use DMY date format, in their contributions, either out of ignorance of the American English preference for the article, or because they feel, as Filippusson, that British English is more natural for this subject. In order to prevent the compromisation of the style of the article, I therefore believe it would be a sensible measure to have the {{American English}} editnotice on the article page. And possible also, as a talk page notice, here on this page. __meco (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the editnotice per general lack of discussion recently, but if anyone objects please request here for it to be removed. Tra (Talk) 06:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Media conflating Breivik and NDL

In an article in yesterday's The Independent titled "Far right unites in European initiative" which augurs the establishment of a European Defence League at the upcoming European Counter-Jihad Meeting in Aarhus, Denmark. One quoted anti-fascism activist states that "We should not forget that it was the Norwegian Defence League that gave us [Anders] Brevik." I think we should watch this meme for possible discussion in the present article in the future. __meco (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Breivik's 2009 forum post

I figure we might as well continue the discussion on how to discuss this in the article in a separate section, as I just found a new source which complicates matters further. It's from a July 27, 2011 article in Spiegel Online titled "Blogging Hate: Anders Breivik's Roots in Right-Wing Populism" (note: it's not a blog post despite the word blog being part of the title). Here we find the following sentence: "Breivik himself claims to have participated in the creation of a Norwegian chapter of the English Defence League, called the Norwegian Defence League." I'm not doing anything to our article yet based on this find, since it introduces a new claim that we have so far not seen in other sources. __meco (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more helpful, I found another article from Manchester newspaper Mule, "EDL ‘LGBT’ division cancels Canal Street leafleting, encourages support of ‘Norwegian Defence League’", posted the day after the terrorist attacks. It states: "In posts made on Document.no between 2009-10, Breivik claimed one of his key long-term goals was “creating a Norwegian EDL”. It is unknown if he was involved in the foundation of the NDL." If this newspaper is sufficiently reliable this might help us out considerably. But employing the principle of collective editorship, that might just not be the case. The paper has been discussed once at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 89#Mule (newspaper). Perhaps it is sufficiently reliable for connecting the dots of saying that Breivik's involvement in the founding of the NDL is unknown despite his forum post. __meco (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Using these two new sources, as well as the references we already have in the article, I have now created a new section, at the beginning of the main history section. Hopefully this is an acceptable solution given the now available references that discuss this matter. __meco (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree sharply. The weight given to such media speculation is wildly undue in its present context, that is with the highly questionable analogy made by putting it at the forefront as the "history" of the NDL. It is probably acceptable to include what you added as additional speculation in the context of the original section on Breivik, but you are just making thing worse with your new supposed "background" section for the group. If it was undisputably confirmed that Breivik was a key figure in the formation of the NDL, then it would likely be okay to include it at the start; but when it is nothing more than media speculation about whether he even was a member of the group in the start (which is hardly agreed upon), it is simply an unacceptable solution. —Filippusson (t.) 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had presented the various aspects of all of this so that all the ifs and buts were now clearly laid out to prevent undue speculation. What is unclear still is so because the various sources diverge, not because the article's discussion of the matters is confused. Do you still find fault with how Breivik's early involvement is discussed or is it just the prominent placement of the discussion within the article which grieves you? As both I and the third opinion editor above have opined this should be presented prominently, not just as part of the preexisting Breivik section several sub-sections into the history section. I really don't see the validity of your argument that this information would need to be confirmed one way or the other for its inclusion to be justified. On the contrary I find it of added importance that readers who are confused by diverging media reports can read this article to get a clearer understanding of why there remains confusion about Breivik's impact on and participation in the NDL's early history. __meco (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

3O: 1. "The sentence in the section "Formation" which reads The first documented initiative for establishing a Norwegian sister organization to the English Defence League had occurred in a forum post by Anders Behring Breivik, the accused Norwegian spree killer, in December 2009. is not relevant to this section and should be removed. This is because there does not appear to be any information which links this post to the formation of the NDL." 4. "Whether the NDL like it or not, a key factor in their notability is their link to Anders Breivik. Readers are likely to come to the article looking for that, and we should give it to them in full. So, I disagree with Filippusson's view that Breivik's post on document.no is not relevant to the history of the NDL." (My comment: 3O misinterpreted me, as I fully agree that it has a place in the history of the NDL in the context of the section on Breivik) 5. "However, it ought to be made clearer that this posting is not known to be connected to the actual formation of the NDL." 6. "The phrase "first documented initiative" does not appear to be supported by any source, and so the sentence should be rephrased to avoid making this claim."

How on earth do you twist this to become support for your view? —Filippusson (t.) 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Too trivial

I propose we simply remove the last section of the article, Norwegian Defence League#EDL protest, September 2011. It's an anecdote entirely based on Ronny Alte's version of the incident. It doesn't seem important enough to mention, let alone for its own section, considering other issues that the article needs to discuss. __meco (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have previously thought the same thing myself. —Filippusson (t.) 20:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the section. __meco (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Breivik's "role in founding"

Should discussion around the speculated "role of Anders Behring Breivik in founding the organization" be used as a starting-point for the history section of this article, or be included as additional information/speculation in the previously established section concerning Breivik? The issue has previously been discussed at #Ongoing edits – February/March 2012 and #Breivik's 2009 forum post. —Filippusson (t.) 20:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The standard for presenting an RFC is to present the conflict neutrally, not to present the case from the perspective of the party who calls the RFC... __meco (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC) The text above has been modified and is different from the RFC wording at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law at present. I'm unsure whether that text will update or whether it can be modified manually (or should). __meco (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The above-mentioned features of the section are so integral to the issue that it would not make any sense leaving them out. I don't see how you can deny that it either is media speculation, nor that it is based on the forum post. If I only asked whether the article's history section should be based on "the role of Anders Behring Breivik in founding the organization", it would imply that the matter was an undisputed fact. —Filippusson (t.) 21:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It has now apparently been updated. —Filippusson (t.) 22:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Filippusson, I think you've worded the RfC to your own disadvantage. People are going to assume that voting no means that the information will not appear in the article, and this will make them vote yes. You should make it clearer that the issue is about where, rather than whether this information should be included. FormerIP (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right; I have changed the wording accordingly. —Filippusson (t.) 22:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now asked for help to resolve this dispute at Talk:English Defence League. __meco (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge the content to the next section (Formation). I would just move the paragraph in question after the first paragraph of "Formation" and remove the "The role of Anders Behring Breivik in founding the organization" heading. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:NorwegianInHoc002white.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NorwegianInHoc002white.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:NorwegianInHoc002white.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Leadership section, timeline

We already have a Membership section. I think a Leadership section is even more appropriate considering how much of the article currently discusses issues related to leadership. This would also cause the current History section to shrink considerably. I also see the need for a timeline section. We need to keep restructing the article to improve its lucidity and reader-friendliness. __meco (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Too much detail about conspiratorial chatter

In the section Mayoral candidates discussing killings Håvar Krane's idle suggestions are referenced:

...had talked about his desire of "putting a Glock in the neckhole" of Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and "blocking all the exits with Molotov cocktails" during the government cabinet's Christmas dinner.

In my view this is too much detail. We ought instead simply to give a general overview of the content of the talk, and we should leave out references (and thus any need for wikilinks) to Glock, Støre or Molotov cocktails, as well as unlinking "government cabinet". __meco (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)