Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

Translating the word lederperson

I am assuming that the English translation of the word, might stay in the article. (The word was said by one of the prison official on Day 3 of the trial in 2024.)--'Some sort of leader-figure' is not really what is being said--For now, the closest translation might be "someone in the category of leadership".--The word, i think, could be used to describe someone who one is not sure if is a leader (of an organisation), but on the surface it seems that perhaps the person is a leader (of an organisation).--Anyway, translating to "leader figure", would be going to far, i feel; i am guessing that the witness knows other precise words for various kinds of 'leader-type people'.--Note: some words have been in use for decades, but might not be in any major dictionaries.--The word has been around for decades, and i would say that it has not changed its meaning (for that time).--Conclusion: "leader figure", was not what the witness said.--If this post was helpful, then fine. 46.15.99.40 (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Leader-like figure, is what I have landed at, for now. 46.15.96.109 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

RedCross-dog and the judge's some questions

On (the middle of) Day 4, the judge had some questions for Breivik about the woman with the petting-dog or RedCross-dog.--The question was not if the government had brought in a woman (with a dog), to make the man's juices flow, or make the man hot-to-trot.--The newspaper's view is that Breivik tried to chat her up (and she revealed that she is not single, and has kids).--For now, I am not seeing that the commentators are making much of the RedCross-dog etc and the judge's question.--Seems that no priceless testimony to see, right here, for now.--Source, Nettavisen, nettavisen.no/nyheter/breivik-saksoker-staten/s/5-95-1557595. 46.15.96.109 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

One should consider looking for references that say, the court (of public opinion) says that the stroking-the-fur-of-the-pet lasted only 10 minutes, and then one (or more things happened which the court considers out-of-character for a person that has been kept in a 'concentration camp' for c. 11 years) : It is unlikely that the prisoner was disappointed with the 'un-Nazi appearance etc' of the Golden Retriever dog, or Labrador dog.--The same court finds that there were no other disappointments about the dog.--The same court finds no literature of a person's senses being overwhelmed (sensory overload) - and then starting to chit-chat with a new (human) face that has appeared at the village's square (or at the prison camp's center).--For now, I think it is okay to source that the judge asked Breivik questions about the dog-petting.--It might also be okay to source that the stroking-the-fur lasted for "... ten minutes". 46.15.96.43 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Move out of lede?

"Breivik announced that he did not recognize the legitimacy of the court and therefore did not accept its decision—he decided not to appeal, saying this would legitimize the authority of the Oslo District Court".--Can all this stuff be moved out of the lede? (I, for one, am fine with move.) 46.15.96.152 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, it's detail that doesn't belong in the lede. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What kind of a sentence is this below ie why is it written as if clarification is added to a quote?

"The verdict [was] appealed [and a final verdict exists], and Breivik and his lawyer [launched] a lawsuit (in a non-Norwegian court) regarding the conditions of his imprisonment and alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, [and the last-mentioned lawsuit, was not heard in court]."

Can something be done to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.252.223 (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Why are all the square brackets there? Are they commmentary? Corrections? Whatever the case, they really should be removed. --Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)