Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Dellort somewhere else

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dellort --Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Not a biographical entry

The article is written as a biography, but it reports an ongoing event. Please remove the entry until clear and trustworthy information is available. Consider move to other (news) fora. The part

is suspected of being the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks.[1][2][3] On 22 July 2011, he approached a Labour Party youth camp, posing as a police officer. He then proceeded to open fire on the 13 to 25 year old youth present, reportedly killing at least 10. He has also been linked with the bomb blast that took place approximately two hours earlier, and is now in police custody

may be completely false, valid for 5 minutes, 1 day or until a possible future court ruling.

This part is definitely slender and libelous in the context of a claimed biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micke.x (talk • contribs) 00:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.203.133.231, 23 July 2011

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article231455.ece (Maybe the same person) http://skattelister.no/skatt/profil/anders-behring-breivik-33747942/ (This is the site that provides annuallay tax and income) http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/prosjekt/frimurer/losjer/soilene/medlem/80189 (Freemason) http://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=994089269 (His occupation; keywords - Cultivation of vegetables, melons, roots and tubers)

http://boards.4chan.org/k/res/9329616#9330275 (People are talking about http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Nicolai_Kvisler might be an) http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/naa-utbetales-arvepengene-til-hoeyreekstreme-3161059.html

80.203.133.231 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of external links. --hydrox (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why the haste?

You all have my admiration. The speed of journalists, and twice their integrity. (If you are not just Breivik hiding behind your signatures. Smile.) However, why the haste? Do you have deadlines to meet. Does your publisher crave beating the competition? I thought issues were meant to be examined after the heat of the moment had subsided. The youtube video comments have gone viral, 8,000 and counting.

Let's face it, the real issues here are not embodied in the life of this man, whatever it was and will become. Although one can seek enlightenment there, I doubt it will be found. It instead is everywhere mankind resides; in our innate xenophobia.

Justified as well, all newcomers are competitors to just your genes. And as Richard Dawkings writes; it works on a person to person basis; not group against group. But group labels are convenient; like foreign flags.

What drives the haste here? Idealist707 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a big event, it might possibly make people examine their motives and the rationale of others throughout the world. I hope so, because it is really silly for us to keep slaughtering each other, or watching others do so while using the media to justify their actions. I appreciate the information I get on Wikipedia, but I hope everybody editing the associated articles will stick to the facts of what just happened to us. 173.247.29.132 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Military Service?

I doubt that he did a military service, source is Der Speigel in german, but in his own writings he denies it and claim he was at the univeristy instead. RGDS

Alexmcfire

Christian Fundamentalist

"right-wing fundamentalist Christian" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24oslo.html?_r=1

This citation can be added to the last sentance of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.123.176 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian Terrorist

Hours before the shootings occurred, Breivik released an anti-Muslim video detailing that many Christian groups desired a violent staged revolution in Europe to kill the "cultural Marxists" who were, as he saw it, working to weaken Christendom and the "cultural purity" of Europe. He advocated the organization called the "Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon." His video urged Christian Europeans to be “justiciar knights,” and rely on the virtues of the crusaders and other Christians in Europe who had battled Muslims in the name of Christianity. Breivik wrote that it was essential to "fight" for a "Judeo-Christian Europe", praised the rejection of "anti-Jewish views" and stated that "the new Conservatist ‘new right’ is rapidly developing into a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad alliance." He applauds Israel, and considers Israel to be a victim of alleged "cultural Marxists" who "see Israel as a 'racist' state".

Known to police

It's possible he was already known to police. An unnamed 23 year old right wing activist was arrested in 2001 with explosives in Oslo. Source: https://plus.google.com/113876014261852640553/posts/XeJhYnDpamh

Saying that he's killed "at least 80" isn't correct. He killed at least 80 at the camp, but the bombing killed at least 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.202.140 (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is to early to say that he was the bomber. It is only a police theory at this stage. Also, it is stated that he was only known to the police for minor traffic violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alehel (talk • contribs) 09:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, his lawyer says he admits to the facts and will tell all at arraignment on Monday. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pure unsourced speculation

The identification of this person with these events is pure unsourced speculation. Norwegian police have not made any identification of the suspect as yet; and mainstream media in Norway are not naming any speculated suspects. This is all based on blog and forum speculation based on a person briefly in the media in 2001 that they think fits the description. This article needs to be deleted and salted immediately. --Xover (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think events are outstripping your criticism, and will continue to do so. We Americans are used to this sort of thing, alas.--Brad Patrick (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Retracted. Norwegian media have now identified the suspect, presumably since international media have already done so. --Xover (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As it stands currently this page is potentially libellous. It doesn't need deleting, just rewording. (ie "On 22 July 2011...proceeded to open fire on the 13 to 25 year old youth present") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardm119 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. Since when do we write pages about crime suspects who are in no way notable apart from any other crime suspect? Also some laughably poor implications and language on this page. "It is not yet known if he worked alone"? Well obviously, it's not yet known if he did it himself. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --84.208.49.40 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The information is correct and its an ongoing issue in Norway right now. More will come.

A mass-murder of 91 people, mostly teenagers is going to be big news for quite a while especially given the fact that this guy allegedly detonated a car bomb in Central Oslo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Up to 93 as a man dies in the hospital. Do I have the numbers right? 82 at island and 11 in city? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Don't lump together.

Delete

This guy is NOT issued with a final sentence. This is a unreasonable prejudgment (anon)

Not quite factual...

Original Manifestum to download: http://bullion-investor.net/2011/07/original-manifest-des-oslo-attentaeters-anders-behring-breivik-im-wortlaut-a-european-declaration-of-independence/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.254.138 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Armed police (something like the S.W.A.T.) has searches his flat, nobody has identified the owner of the flat as the one in custody but several newspapers speculate. Jeblad (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Norwegian TV2 sources in the police has confirmed that this is the suspect in the Utøya shooting. Jeblad (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Social media

What exactly is the stance on using his details from his social network accounts, i.e., Twitter and Facebook, in the article? They both were set up on the 17th, and provide an odd insight into the man. --TheGreatDefective (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait until the WP:RS report on them before we mention anything. This is a WP:BLP no matter how despicable the actions.--Cerejota (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

His twitter is still up as of this date, but his facebook was quickly taken down ... by facebook?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.6 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested redirect

Please continue the development of this article under 2011 Norway attacks#Perpetrator. See WP:BLP1E for reasoning. --hydrox (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is not a general prohibition, but one that is to be taken seriously. Due to the recent nature of the event, I suggest we wait. There is plenty of precedent for this, such as Ajmal Kasab.--Cerejota (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can not see how this could be any different from 2010 Stockholm bombings or the school shootings in Finland. None of these have separate articles about the perpetrators. --hydrox (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That could be true, but my point is that in conflicting precedent, lets wait. There is no deadline.--Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to merge this content into 2011 Norway attacks, you should propose a merge and have a general discussion about it. If you feel this articles doesn't meet BLP1E, please take it to WP:AFD. Edit summaries are no place for a discussion. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the amount of precedent is enough. --hydrox (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the amount of precedent (see Timothy McVeigh, Seung-hui Cho, etc.) is enough---but that precedent is to not merge and to keep this article separate, quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. —Lowellian (reply) 03:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, the article was taking a worrying developments. It had gossip like stuff (ie. stuff using someone's Facebook profile as source, while there seems to be no indication that this is the perpetrator's Facebook profile or just someone's who happens to have the same name). This is not at all acceptable per WP:BLP at this stage. I think it is by far best to wait and see if this individual turns out enough notable to merit his own article. Meanwhile, it is much better to go with one article for the event. --hydrox (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problems with nasty content are solved by editing out and policing the edits. Those tools are not fo' show ya know :) Let me re-state: I say is too early to BLP1E this baby, because it could meet the John Hinckley, Jr. criteria for inclusion. I can see it coming in particular as lone-wolf seems to be the case, and because these were not just one attack, but two, in fact, two events. The complexity is there. I think a redirect might be premature.--Cerejota (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one huge difference to the 2010 Stockholm bombings and to the school shootings in Finland: he is still alive. At 32 he may live another 50 years – and most likely will remain in the news for all of those years. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ya, and with the maximum sentence he can receive being 21 years in Norway, he'll be out of prison in his early-50s!

Wikipedia only has articles only on notable topics. Biographies of living persons must adhere to to their corresponding policy. There is a rather, strong precedent from similiar events not to have articles for individuals that are notable only for one event. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. I think there is stronger case for not having article on him if he is still alive, as living individuals are more prone to damage by misinformation. --hydrox (talk) hydrox (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (edited to better respond to the previous comment)

I think the article should be separate and not merged into the other article. As evident by the AfD the subject is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman?

I may have misunderstood what I read, but Anders Behring Breivik seems to be the same person as Fjordman, a profilic anti-Islamist blogger and commentator. His complete works are listed in the "Fjordman files".

• http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/p/fjordman-files.html
• http://chromatism.net/fjordman/fjordmanfiles.htm

Old blog from 2005:

• http://fjordman.blogspot.com

The odd thing is that Fjordman is anti-terror. He has several postings on Jihad Watch. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Would be very interesting indeed to see the source which you are basing this on. --hydrox (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. See here[1].--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to be misinformation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Source: Gates of Vienna – For the Record -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Fjordman but Andrew Berwick

Update: This story is still alive. The Finnish media are making a connection to Jussi Halla-aho. According to this news Breivik has pseudonymously written a 1500 page book. Iltalehti does not mention the pseudonym, but sounds a lot like Fjordman.

• Yle: Norjan surmista epäilty mainitsee kirjassaan Halla-ahon

I will try to follow the story back to its source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Breivik is not Fjordman but uses the alias Andrew Berwick. He has written a manifest, 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence and posted a YouTube video. Here is a blog source with links: Anders Behring Breivik, Andrew Berwick and 2083 Manifesto

• Manifest: 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence
• Video:
  • http://www.kevinislaughter.com/2011/2083-manifesto-and-movie-real-or-not/
  • Knights Templar 2083 (Copy posted by FinCD86)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik Geofarm

"... Breivik Geofarm, a farm with 790 employees.". This is not true, 790 is the company's sector code in the Brønnøysund registers, not the number of employees. Please remove fix this immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.179.209.38 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Called himself a nationalist"

This has been repeated in various media a few times but no source for these statements has ever been put forward. Not a word on when he has said it, where he said it, or to who'm.. Knowing the media in Scandinavia (the first to claim this) I wouldn't be surprised if it's made up.. Is there any verifiable "extreme right-wing" connection whatsoever? If his facebook account is(was) to be believed (which is part of what media based their information on) he's a neoliberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.176.140 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The claims are mostly based on his alleged Facebook profile, which is still linked in the article. Please note that there is no guarantee whatsoever about the validity of this Facebook profile. Someone could have made it up when they first heard the suspect's name, just to give one possible scenario. --hydrox (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Former member of FRP. http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.254.65 (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From documents.no.. "For meg blir det svært hyklersk å behandle Muslimer, Nazister og Marxister forskjellig. De er alle tilhengere av hat-ideologier."

Translation: For me, it is grave hypocrisy to treat muslims, nazis or marxists any differently. They are all adherents to hate-ideologies.

"Man kan ikke bekjempe rasisme (multikulti) med rasisme. Etnosentrisme blir derfor det komplett motsatte av hva vi ønsker å oppnå."

Translation: You cannot fight racism (multiculturalism) with racism. Etnocentrism is therefore the complete opposite of what we wish to acheive.

And do check the pages! He calls himself and his politics "cultural conservative" over and over and over again.

@ Hydrox The facebook page is/was dated days before the attacks took place.. 90.227.176.140 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook page is a fake!

The facebook page was created 4 days ago on 18 july. He does not have any friends on the page. This is a fake! The media just repeats the informations of the page, which claims that he was a conservative, nationalist, freemason, but this seems very unlikely. The page cannot be considered trustworthy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.25.45 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Facebook page was created while Breivik still was unknown. It's likely Breivik created the page himself to be found after his attacks. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-described Christian conservative

Anders Behring Breivik is a self described conservatve christian. With all the notion that the purpetrator was a muslim it has an importance to it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/anders-behring-breivik-id_n_907513.html Anders751 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"He is also described as a one-time freemason"

Relevance (to people who are not conspiracy nuts and anti-masons)? Can we at least have an english language extract of the Norwegian source in the notes?Benvenuto (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

According to google translater's version of the reference, he joined the Johannes-losjen Søilene as a 1st degree member (apprentice) in 2008. There is no evidence of his continuing membership of the lodgeBenvenuto (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant it is, but Dagbladet.no reports that his membership is confirmed by the leader of the lodge. Google Translation of same page. 70.174.160.216 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) John

I actually just removed this again, so let me address a few things. One, neither statement is attributed to a person by name, and one seems very much in the vein of "he wasn't really affiliated with our political party, but you might want to look at the Masons." It's a nice little deflective ploy, and for context alone I would discount it. The other source basically says that a book was found, and I would discount it as non-RS.

While I am unfamiliar with all of the particulars of the Swedish Rite that he joined, it does only allow professed Christians to join. Also note that it was three years ago, and that generally, joining as a first-degree member does not confer "membership" privileges. A similar situation arose with Lyndon Baines Johnson, who became an Entered Apprentice and never went on. So, everyone thinks LBJ was a Mason, and he was not. Therefore, Breivik quite possibly never reached the level of being a full member, and he very likely could have been expelled for his beliefs if he voiced them.

So is there relevance? Almost assuredly not, even in the conspiracy theory realm, because the whole NWO thing is very much biased towards English-speaking countries and governments. I'm not sure why, but that seems to be the case. Discounting that, there's no proof of membership (current or otherwise), and also a fairly large (and vague) assumption of what the beliefs of Freemasons are by people who aren't in a position to know. Anyhow, suffice to say that I see no reason for that material to be included as factual or relevant to this article. MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Witholding information about his membership as a Freemason is censorship. He has committed one of the worst mass murders in recent memory and every organization he has belonged to is relevant. Nobody is bringing up conspiracy theories, these are the facts. Astræa (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

His deleted Facebook as PDF-File

http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Anders-Behring-Breivik-FACEBOOK.pdf --82.113.99.150 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I get confirmation on this? If so, why would he plan on attacking a Labour Party event when he like 1984 as a book? Could be used as a good source if proven real. --BurtaciousD (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I myself know right wingers that read the book "1984" as a manifesto against communism. For them (to them?) Labour Party is a kind of communism. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ot, but it in fact is a manifesto against communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.82.150 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

well, the Labour Party is shown to be democratic socialist, which is exactly what 1984 suggests. If he is that into political analysis and such, he would know this. Or maybe hes just literarily challenged. --BurtaciousD (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone equals communism and democratic socialism and he looks at the book 1984 as a manifesto against communism then he will love this book and see it as a justification to fight democratic socialism. And that is, what Anders Breivig did. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook public page HTML backup

http://irc-urls.net/anders_behring_breivik-facebook/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitarv (talk • contribs) 06:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Anders-Behring-Breivik-FACEBOOK.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.31.55 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

2001 arrest?

Here is old news from 2001 that seems to be about the same person. Translation: "A 23-year-old neo-Nazi from Ringerike is in custody after police found two pistols, one kg explosives and two police uniforms with him."

• Hans O. Torgersen (17.11.2001). "Nynazist tatt med dynamitt og politiuniformer". Aftenposten (in Norwegian). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The source making the connection is this blog: Elin Henriette: Anders Behring Breivik: Nåtidens Quisling? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looked for more sources. Several bloggers are speculating on this, but I cannot find any confirmation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the same person. Keanu (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemason

Picture: http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/281538_103736456391397_100002651290254_19949_3078284_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.31.55 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemason Andreas Behring http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/prosjekt/frimurer/losjer/soilene/medlem/80189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.38.124 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The freemason member list: http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/prosjekt/frimurer/losjer/soilene/medlemmer/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.38.124 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And why would it not give his last name or more of a birthdate? What's the point of a members list that's missing information? That's like saying John Wayne, member of <X> lodge, born in whatever year, is the same as John Wayne Gacy, when he might just as well be John Wayne (which I know was not his real name) It's also not on what would appear to be an official site, as far as I can tell. Therefore, this is synthesis. Also, it doesn't answer the question of: What's the relevance? You might as well say the bank or supermarket he went to was a factor, and thus all the other customers are suspect as well. MSJapan (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is photographed dressed in Freemason attire, was a member of a lodge, and includes "Freemasons" as part of his hobbies in his manifesto; he said he was a Freemason for 5 years. What more proof do you need? Astræa (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof that it is relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are trying to say that his activities in organizations are not relevant to his life, then please remove his interests, influences and other personal details on his page. Otherwise, you are not being neutral about this by selectively withholding information. Astræa (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

His lodge has released a statement that he has been excluded: http://www.frimurer.no/ordenen/15-aktuelt/1190-den-norske-frimurerorden-uttrykker-medfolelse-og-omsorg Should be included in the article? Astræa (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Seperate section

According to Norwegian State TV (NRK) Anders B. Breivik is at this point in time the only suspect in the killing of about 90 people including many children and youngsters at a political youth camp. Imagine that it could have been in Minnesota or Columbine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.90.204 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

This blog seems to summarize all that is known about Breivik.

• Mer om gjerningsmannen

There is only one other piece of information I have found, his tax returns:

• ANDERS BEHRING BREIVIK (f. 1979)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Attention-seeker succeeds

I'm no psychiatrist but I'd guess that this person sought attention. Wikipedia takes his nutty views seriously and helps make him a minor celebrity. Is this Wikipedia policy, to broadcast the ideas of criminals and the criminally insane? The promise of Wikipedia immortality might thrill potential copycats. 223.133.18.177 (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its articles on coverage in media sources deemed to be reliable. Also we do not censor. Furthermore, he is receiving a biographical article because he has killed scores of people, not because of his political views. Surely that did not escape you? __meco (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Discussion moved to Talk:2011 Norway attacks#Merger proposal.  Sandstein  11:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to include some background on his interests

{{Edit protected}} Anders Behring Brevik identifies himself as both conservative and Christian, and is interested in hunting, bodybuilding and freemasonry. This kind of background stuff on what the guy is like is being covered extensively in media discussions, and ought to be included in Wikipedia's article. Here's a source from the website of a broadsheet newspaper for that information if his archived Facebook page is not considered a reliable source. The interest in hunting in particular is certainly notable, given the well-established correlations between violence towards animals and violence towards humans (see a large body of research in the scholarly literature http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=animal%20abuse%20violence). In case of any doubt, I'm obviously not suggesting that we draw any original research conclusions from his interests and ostensible personal life, just that we state the known facts about these aspects of the prime suspect: his political and religious views and his interests. I would have added this stuff myself, but someone has protected the page. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Changing from semi->protected request Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)}

_{Page no longer protected. Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)}

Involvement with the English Defence League

"There are also citizens' websites like Document.no, where Anders Behring Breivik left racist, extremist right-wing comments along with fellow anti-Muslims, and there were attempts to start up Norwegian satellite groups in support of the English Defence League."

That's from the BBC. Please add this information to the article, as well as that given in the edit request above. Is anyone monitoring this talk page? It's no good semi-protecting an article if you aren't going to accept reasonable edit requests from readers who've found information that ought to go in the article. Thanks. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I do not support this addition, as it is reminiscent of guilt by association. Just because a website Breivik visited hosted articles which supported the same causes as EDL, does not mean that Breivik was involved in this. It is simply too tenuous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - coatracking an uninvolved group with a mass murder. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. It's not that he posted on a website which also hosted some articles about the EDL: Breivik himself wanted to set up groups in support of it or according to its model. See for example this that he wrote:

"I have on some occasions discussed with SIOE [Stop Islamification Of Europe] and EDL and recommended them to use conscious strategies.

The tactics of the EDL is now out to "entice" an overreaction from Jihad Youth / Extreme-Marxists something they have succeeded several times already. Over The reaction has been repeatedly shown on the news which has booster EDLs ranks high.

This has also benefited BNP. WinWin for both.

But I must say I am very impressed with how quickly they have grown but this has to do with smart tactical choice by management.

EDL is an example and a Norwegian version is the only way to prevent Flash / SOS to harass Norwegian cultural conservatives from other fronts. Creating a Norwegian EDL should be No. 3 on the agenda after we have started up a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution.

The agenda of the Norwegian cultural conservative movement over the next 5 years are therefore:

1 Newspaper with national distribution

2 Working for the control of several NGOs

3 Norwegian EDL"

Translation is from [2]. You can look at a machine translation of his posts if you want to see it for yourself: [3]. See also url.com/3b9zfzf, [4], [5] (that last one's from Craig Murray, a former British ambassador). I think your use of the word "coatracking" is an assumption of bad faith on your part and I am due an apology. Breivik's background and political views are central to the whole affair. We don't shy away from saying he was a former member of the FrP because of the risk of promoting guilt by association: we trust our readers a bit more than that! 82.32.186.24 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• OK, that is certainly a more relevant source. I am a bit concerned about whether this source is considered unbiassed enough, because it appears to be fairly far out on the left wing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that's just a translation by this left-wing website. Since you're a native speaker of Norwegian you can check out the original for yourself at http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/. The BBC is reporting that "Anders Behring Breivik left racist, extremist right-wing comments along with fellow anti-Muslims, and there were attempts to start up Norwegian satellite groups in support of the English Defence League", and they're a mainstream news source cited thousands of times in Wikipedia articles. I don't think it's therefore relevant that the specific translation I quoted is from a left-wing website. They are far from the only ones reporting this stuff and the article already links to http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/, it just doesn't give readers a summary of what he says there. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to rely on third party sources to explain his views, not lift them from his postings. See WP:PRIMARY. TFD (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

*Bangs head against brick wall* "There are also citizens' websites like Document.no, where Anders Behring Breivik left racist, extremist right-wing comments along with fellow anti-Muslims, and there were attempts to start up Norwegian satellite groups in support of the English Defence League." from the BBC. Please read the entire section before replying. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That quote should be good enough - the problem is that this BBC text is so murky and ambiguous ('there were attempts') that you don't know what to make of it. A Google translate of this Norwegian source [6] is much clearer (!): [7]

Behring Breivik said he was active in FpU and Progress Party for years, arguing that he "contributed to their success." He left the party to continue working with what he claimed was to "help develop / promote the political doctrines abroad"

Support for EDL

Breivik has also expressed support for the British English Defense League, a very radical organization on the right side in England. He has also meant that one should build up a similar organization in Norway.

Even though this is mechanically translated text, I think that given the source gave it its own subheading, and in combination with the BBC source, it is worth mentioning. It makes his admiration for the EDL sound like more than just a passing comment in a thousand Usenet posts - whether that's true or not, I'm not so sure about, but that's up to the sources to decide, not us. Wnt (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Churchill

His Facebook profile identifies him as an admirer of two persons, i.e. Winston Churchill and Max Manus (source: [8][9]). As his political beliefs are very significant for understanding the motive, both should be mentioned. JonFlaune (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemason

I am very surprised to see no mention that he was a freemason. It is mentioned in the Norwegian Wikipedia article, and has figured in several news items I have seen. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What possible relevance does it have? WWGB (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not for Wikipedia to determine relevance, simply to document what is being reported. It may or may not be directly relevant to his actions. That's not the point. The man's background, interests and views are eminently notable and of legitimate interest to a great many people. For that reason the Wikipedia article on this man needs to include his interests, his political views and activities, his religious views, and all the other material he makes available to the world through his posts at http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/ (e.g. that he's a millionaire and that he's friends with prominent people in the Norwegian web and social networking industry) and on Facebook. Numerous sources have been provided in various sections on this talk page, but due to the semi-protection only a somewhat arbitrary subset of details about the man are currently included in the article. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"It is not for Wikipedia to determine relevance, simply to document what is being reported. " -> agreed. There is far too much editorialising here at Wikipedia. Our job is merely to report what external sources cite as being relevant/significant information, in an NPOV fashion. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources indicate any sort of connection. So why does it keep coming up? MSJapan (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

i seet on Indonesian christian news, tells that he is a Freemason also Kabar Gereja http://www.kabargereja.tk/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-seorang.html

Someone who was a conservative Christian would not be a Freemason.

Conservative?

The article says: "characterized by officials as being a conservative right-wing extremist". The cited source says: "It listed his religion as Christian, politics as conservative". Other sources state that he considered Geert Wilders' far-right extremist pro-Israel anti-Islam party to be "the only true party for conservatives"[10]. So when he uses the word "conservative", it has a very different meaning than to everyone else. I don't think officials described him as conservative. JonFlaune (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "everyone"? What "officials"? The source says "It listed his religion as Christian, politics as conservative". That's how the man described his own views. I don't think Wilders describes his own party as "far-right extremist pro-Israel anti-Islam party" as you choose to describe it. Imho, "conservative" is a pretty straightforward description of Wilders' politics. Of course not every conservative will go on a killing spree, but the same is also true of every Islamist, every Neo-Nazi and every communist. The guy is a conservative, and he is also a mass murderer. Not all mass murderers are conservatives, and not all conservatives are mass murderers. What is your problem? --dab (𒁳) 16:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Neoconservative" is much closer to the available descriptions of his overall political stance, but unless and until a RS writes this, we of course cannot include that. But I agree that he's not paleoconservative (read: actually conservative) by any stretch of the imagination. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

publication, methods and publicty hunger looks a lot like a lone wolfe neo nazi, we had one in London set bombs off.--88.104.17.163 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel

I noticed the current state of this article mentions on multiple occasions his support for Israel. While I don't dispute that he is pro-Israel, I don't see how that particular opinion is more relevant than some of his other political beliefs. This attack was conducted in Norway by a Norwegian and nothing about it shows that his pro-Israel beliefs had anything in particular to do with the attack. I would suggest removing mention on his pro-Israel beliefs or at least including more of his political beliefs that are more relevant, such as his opinion on domestic issues on Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.173.219 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

His political stance is apparently anti-Islamic, pro-Israel, economically liberal and socially conservative. All this is highly relevant, since many people and movements in the Western world share his political stance, e.g. the Tea Party. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a fine example of guilt by association... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's your very own perception. I call it accuracy and completeness of coverage. Had the perpetrator turned out to be Muslim, as e.g. Fox News was desperately hoping for, do you honestly believe we wouldn't have covered his political stance to the fullest extent allowed for by the available reliable sources? So why on earth would we start censoring this article for political correctness? To protect the sensitivities of people who share his political stance? Most certainly not. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought the "pro-Israel" was laid on a little heavy. Mention it, yes, but no need to be repetitious. Namely, the second "pro-Israel" is a description of document.no - but we have an article about that site, and I don't see the need to pick out two characteristics of it to put here. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no proper encyclopedic reason to exclude a concise and straightforward mention of document.no's political direction as it relates to Breivik's. There are plenty of POV reasons, but they are irrelevant. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Aww, you Hasbara shills need to try harder. 124.169.71.201 (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

As a matter of fact there was a strong movement under the killed youth to "Boikott Israel". This is shwon on the website of Norwegian TV2 about the visit of Utenriksminister Jonas Gahr Støre to the camp a day prior to the massmurdering: http://politisk.tv2.no/nyheter/st%C3%B8re-om-israel-palestina-konflikten-%E2%80%93-okkupasjonen-ma-opph%C3%B8re-muren-ma-rives-og-det-ma-skje-na/. Therefore it is quite important theat Brievik was supporting Israel and could show his motives as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.41 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not so much pro-Israel as anti-Muslim, as he wanted to restart Knights Templar. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

91/0/0 norsk op

One section of the article says:

Breivik studied at the Oslo Commerce School, and is described by newspaper Verdens Gang as considering himself a nationalist.[5] He is also a former member of the Progress Party (FrP) and its youth wing FpU. According to the current FpU leader Ove Vanebo, Breivik was active early in the 2000s, but he left the party as his viewpoints became more extreme.[12] He identified himself in a multitude of social media services as an admirer of, among others, Winston Churchill,[13] Max Manus,[13] and Dutch politician Geert Wilders, whose political party he described as "the only true party for conservatives".[14] Breivik has also identified himself as "pro-gay and pro-Israel".[15] On Twitter he quoted philosopher John Stuart Mill, "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests".[5][16]

Behring Breivik is a Freemason of the Johannes-lodge St. Olaus T.D. Three Pillar. (Johannes-losjen St. Olaus T.D. Tre Søiler).

He is reported to have written many posts on the website document.no,[17] described as "Islam-critical and Israel-friendly".[18] He also attended meetings of "Documents venner" (Friends of Document), affiliated with the website.[19] Dagens Næringsliv writes that Breivik sought to start a Norwegian version of the Tea Party movement in cooperation with the owners of document.no, but that they, after expressing initial interest, ultimately turned down his proposal because he did not have the contacts he promised.[20]

Document.no has compiled a complete list of comments made by Breivik on its website between September 2009 and June 2010.[21]

91/0/0 norsk op

Where does the last line come from? It doesn't appear anywhere in the source text. JIP | Talk 17:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was apparently viewing a cached version. JIP | Talk 17:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering about that too. Apparently, it was part of the source text, but was removed by JonFlaune. Bypassing the browser cache helped. utcursch | talk 17:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik's report of conversion to Catholicism

--212.251.232.216 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Why is Breivik's report of conversion of Catholicism being deleted?

http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/ His own words: "Men dagens protestantisk kirke er en vits. Prester i jeans som marsjerer for Palestina og kirker som ser ut som minimalistiske kjøpesentre. Jeg er tilhenger av en indirekte kollektiv konvertering fra den protestantiske kirke tilbake til den katolske. I mellomtiden stemmer jeg på de mest konservative kandidatene ved kirkevalg.

Det eneste som kan redde den protestantiske kirke er å gå back to basics. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.232.216 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not reliably sourced. JonFlaune (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

--Ben Ammi (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC) His own words are used as a source in regards to other info on the page. If his own admissions are good enough as pertains to A, then it is good enough as pertains to B.

Assuming the Google translation is good: that passage doesn't say he converted to Catholicism. It says he is Protestant and disgusted with his Church; and that he still (2 years ago?) votes for conservative church office holders. (Catholics don't vote for anything like that). Out of his disgust, he recommends that the Protestant Church convert to Catholicism "collectively". --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here is an English language translation from Guardian:
  
  Another significant event was being baptised into the Protestant church of "his own free will" at the age of 15. More recently, however, he had expressed his disgust at his own church. "Today's Protestant church is a joke," he wrote in an online post in 2009. "Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.110.201 (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Sorry, I have to protect the page for a short period due to organized attacks against the page. Will expire in an hour. Prodego ^talk 18:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You should however delete the link under "external links". --RCasimir (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Prodego ^talk 18:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why so short? Non-autoconfirmed users can propose changes here at the talk page via {{Edit semi-protected}} at any time. I'd support semiprotection for at least a couple of days. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a pressing need we try not to protect pages. I am sure the page will be safe in an hour. Prodego ^talk 18:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll defer to your judgment. If it doesn't work out, protection is just an admin click away. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone remove "He has advocated conversion to Catholicism[17]." It's not reliably sourced (the source is a primary source (comment) on a blog). JonFlaune (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done. Prodego ^talk 18:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please, put it back. There are many other reliable sources saying the same, like http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/anders-behring-breivik-norway-attacks?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.110.201 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrased Mill

Breivik didn't quote Mill on his Twitter, he merely paraphrased.

Breivik: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests."

Mill: "One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests."

213.66.84.11 (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't change because of protection; if it isn't a quote, it isn't. 213.66.84.11 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody give source for the Stuart Mill quote, because I can't find it. Sure VG says so but it's obviously not correct? 213.66.84.11 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Name confirmation and confession

The Norwegian Police have confirmed to Al Jazeera that the suspect has been named as Anders Behring Breivik. He has "confessed to firing weapons during questioning". Al Jazeera 183.82.23.249 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My goodness, they should take the weapons off him while they question him! WWGB (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

*Drum snare.* 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Occupation: Farmer

This might be a minor point, but did he really work as a farmer? Wasn't that only a set-up to accumulate all the manure required for bomb-making? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that statement would require a proper source, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pure speculation, and there is no factual evidence that he was actually behind the bombings. Nymf _hideliho! 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that he has confessed the bombings to his lawyer. Also, Norwegian television showed interviews with his former neighbors on the countryside, stating that they never saw him out fertilizing the soil. Also, a policeman stated that the soil was neglected and that there was no notable traces of manure there. Awaiting further reports. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rampage

The attack on the summer camp has some similarity to the 2009 movie Rampage. I'm not suggesting AT ALL that they are related, but both the recent events in Norway and the film begin with a bombing and end with a mass shooting. Worth looking in to, MAY be relevant here (may not). AlaskaMike (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Does that not apply? I suspect that the article assumes guilt when it says, "it is not known if he acted alone." It is not known even known if he acted, he has not been proven guilty. Psychedelic Yogi (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

According to his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, he has acknowledged that he is behind the attacks. http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Foslobomben%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10080675 ZorroIII (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read about this movie, sounds like it could have been where he got his idea from, he did start to plan most of his attacks in late 2009, which co-incides with the movies release. This is obviously just speculation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.108.9 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirected

Our policy on individuals known for a single event is WP:ONEVENT, this is backed up by WP:BLP1E. In addition policies like WP:NOTNEWS suggests caution over rushing to create articles. Because this is a living person the issue is exempt from 3RR. Unless you can demonstrate this individual has independent notability from the current event you are, by policy, not allowed to create an article about him. Anyone restoring this article without such sources will be commiting a BLP villation and may be sanctioned appropriately. Thanks. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E clearly states this is not true of all cases, and you have done this redirect of over more than three consensus discussions. If you persist in ignoring community consensus, you do so at your own peril.--Cerejota (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't even an ambiguous issue; article level consensus does not override policy, especially BLP policy. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and consensus can decide when WP:BIO1E applies and when it doesn't. In any case, I don't believe that policy does not forbid us from having articles in those situations: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I see this situation as very similar to Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. It would be silly for us to not have an article on McVeigh. NW (Talk) 20:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect and protected the page for BLP violations. Happy for this to be reviewed at the noticeboard level, however communioty consensuus is that in the situation where an individual is known purely for one event, and the information can be adequately handled in that article, then we do not have a standalone biography. The event occurred yesterday, it is hard to make any judgement on whether this event deserves a biography at this stage. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your action, but i'm willing to wait at this point. I give it a week. Silverseren^C 21:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy quoted (ONEEVENT) 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.

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

Based on this, I would say (a) this person is far more important in this event than a witness to JFK's assassination, more like Princip's; (b) this event is at least as important as the JFK assassination, at least in Norway. There is "large coverage" and "significant attention"

I know that WP:BLPTRUMPSCOMMONSENSE, but this is a part of BLP clearly not written as a mandate from heaven. Wnt (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the primary objection really "this person is only known for one thing", or is there any controversial content that actually needs to be excised/discussed?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Berwick and his 1500 page manifesto

Someone using the alias Andrew Berwick has published a 1500 page manifesto describing the planning, execution and motivation of the Oslo attacks. The manifesto and the related promotional video are available on-line.

• Direct link: 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence (PDF, 7.7MB)

Also see links above at #Not Fjordman but Andrew Berwick.

We will still have to wait for reliable sources to analyze the material. All I can say now is that this not a forgery done after the fact. It would be impossible to fabricate this amount of relevant material in 24 hours. The manifesto alone will make Breivik notable. In fact it looks like the attack was a carefully planned marketing ploy.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - This BitTorrent link on PirateBay will give you quicker access to the PDF file:

• 2083 A European Declaration of Independence

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add an artile about the book/text itself here 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence, but user Fastily deleted, deeming it vandalism... --Kler80 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Has the manifesto been covered and discussed extensively in reliable sources? Did you include those reliable sources in the article? If no to either of them, then an article on the manifesto is not appropriate. Silverseren^C 00:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian media has reported about the manifest for some hours, but it is so massive that no thorough analysis has yet to be made. But a mention of the manifest is in it place. New York Times link. Rettetast (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I redirected the article on the book to Anders Behring Breivik. The book is not notable, the author is, so this is appropriate. --Cerejota (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:NOR, we can use primary sources as long as no interpretation has been added. We can paraphrase and quote, but shouldn't go beyond that. Or have I misunderstood? --Afghana ^[talk] 01:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

However, the problem with paraphrasing and quoting from a primary source is that you are still interpreting which things are important in it. It does depend on what exactly you are trying to say in the article, but for the most part, we should leave the manifesto alone until it is covered elsewhere. Silverseren^C 01:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Afghana, you are incorrect. A primary source can only be used in conjunction with a secondary or primary source that is verifiably establishing notability. Generally such sources make primary sources unnecessary, as they themselves will provide us with paraphrases or quotes. A problem with using primary sources at all is that often editors do not have the discipline to understand the difference, and use the primary source to further original research and synthesis, sometimes unwittingly. For example, say, a notable corporate startup is mentioned in many industry journals and press, but there is little information about its product line outside of its corporate website, and what products are mentioned are mentioned only as brand names, with little details beyond functionality. In that case, the primary source (website) can be used to fill out the information on products mentioned in secondary or tertiary sources, but not all products of the company. If you need further clarification feel free to drop me a message or ask at WT:OR.--Cerejota (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree and believe the section should remain, however, I will heed WP:CONSENSUS and remove it for now. --Afghana ^[talk] 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

After 700 pages I had to take time out for some fresh air. Anyway, here is a summary from someone who has read through all 1500 pages.

• Blake Hounshell (July 23, 2011). "What did the Oslo killer want?". foreignpolicy.com.

Blake Hounshell is Foreign Policy's Managing Editor, so this may just meet the requirements for a reliable source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that a lot in his "manifesto" is copied from the Unabomber Manifesto, see: [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.0.172.206 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC) This comparison to the Unibomber manifesto is misleading, in that it is really aside the point of this manifesto and would only deserve mention as a minor point if along side more significant and informative analysis of this manifesto. The source quoted is a blog and 3 sentences are shown that are very similar and describe a catagory of "left" type people or ideas. That is not "a lot" of a 1500 page work. The copying charge is minor. The two essays are very different. I think there should be an article about the 2083 manifesto. This is a declaration of war on political correctness and social/cultural Marxism and some plausible ideas about how that war might be carried out. It lays charges, and specifies the death penalty for a group of people who knowingly promote the destruction of western civilization. We don't don't know who wrote it. It seems to be pulled from multiple authors and describes an organization that goes back 9 years. It is full of rational argument and is pretty clearly written. It appears to explain why this man killed those people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.9.54.231 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Some more on his background

His book contains some material on his background, stating that he lived with his parents in London, where his father, an economist, worked as a diplomat, and his mother as a nurse. He states that "all in all, I consider myself privileged and I feel I have had a privileged upbringing with responsible and intelligent people around me". He further states that he has not spoken to his father since he was 15, as the father has cut all contact with all his children. JonFlaune (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

One should also write about his possible links to the video game Grand Theft Auto? < redacted tactless and obnoxious comment by this IP - AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC) > 202.156.10.11 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

One should write about his possible links to the video game Grand Theft Auto? Why? Was he somehow involved in the making of the game? Crazybilby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

Fake support groups/accounts

There are a number of fake support groups that later has changed profile, and also some accounts that has been taken over and now claims to support mr. Breivik. Be extremely careful when quoting anyone from Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and other such sites as the number of unvoluntary supporters seems to be growing rapidly. Jeblad (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be quoting from any of those places anyways. They are not reliable sources. Silverseren^C 01:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why the Facebook Page/PDF is Not WP RS and Christian status is dubious

In viewing the removal of http://solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Anders-Behring-Breivik-FACEBOOK.pdf I have looked into the timeline of the profile, and other factors which support the document is faked post arrest.

The site Atlas Shrugs released an image which shows only "Interesser: Political Analysis, Stock Analysis"

This has been confirmed with a cache from Google snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jul 22, 2011 23:52:36 GMT a PDF has also been made of the cached google page.

The print out of the PDF was made on Jul 23 01:39 GMT according to the site. Meaning between Jul 22, 2011 23:52:36 GMT and Jul 23 01:39 GMT, the profile was modified to removing interests and a new section Philosophy was added with Religious Views as Christian, and Political Views as Conservative. Soon afterwards, this profile was deleted by Facebook.

Considering the factor that the profile user Anders Behring Breivik was detained/under arrest at the time, unauthorized access made to the profile, requires additional clarification, and for this reason, all reports of association with Reuters and the BBC, deputy police chief saying Roger Andresen described Breivik as a "Christian fundamentalist" is dubious and erroneous in the Attacks section to support this aspect. 174.134.205.151 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Fundamentalist Christian comment is from a secondary source, not from the primary source of his Facebook page. Our job is not to argue with valid secondary sources. However, in terms of primary sources, his manifesto does state he views himself as a Christian. However, once again, we will not be using primary sources until secondary sources make them authoritative. --Afghana ^[talk] 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Come on just read the freaking 1500 pages that he wrote, can it really get any more christian fundemental than that? I'll quote it for you: "They may physically kill a Justiciar Knight, but your name will be remembered for centuries. Your story will be told to future generations which will significantly contribute to the morale in the emerging Western European conservative resistance movement. You will forever be celebrated by your people as a martyr for your country, protecting your culture and fighting for your kin and for Christendom." And you can get 10 similar quotes like that and it's the best possible source that can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.114.225 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Christian fundamentalist comment by the deputy police chief is unfortunate. In the USA, Protestant Fundamentalism is historical and specific, meaning "clearly defined". No American Fundamentalist, for example, would ever be described as "pro-gay" as this guy is. Nor would an American Fundamentalist ever recommend that his Protestant church convert to Catholicism as this guy has. So, there's something not right in the deputy's description, at least from an American perspective. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So, at the very least, our wikilink to Christian Fundamentalism is wrong. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

'In the USA, Protestant Fundamentalism is historical and specific, meaning "clearly defined"' Possibly, but this relates to Norway, not the US. Wikipedia isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) written from an 'American perspective'. If the police have described him as a 'Christian fundamentalist', and we have reliable sources for that, we shouldn't apply WP:OR to exclude it. Regarding the WikiLink, I'm inclined to agree that it isn't particularly appropriate (I removed it when it was in direct quotes, per MOS), but the problem is more to do with our article's narrow definition of 'Christian fundamentalism' than anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, what does "Christian fundamentalist" mean from a Norwegian or European perspective, or even your own perspective? Can you give me a quick working definition? --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really - 'fundamentalism' is a broad and ambiguous term, and 'Christian', in an European context doesn't tell us an awful lot either. I've no idea if there is a specifically-Norwegian slant on this, but I'd suspect that many British people for example would see the 'fundamentalist' aspect as being more significant than the 'Christian' - to put it crudely, a 'fundamentalist' is probably a right-wing religious nut. This is just my opinion though, and can't really be taken for anything more. The point is that the source described the subject as such, presumably in the expectation that it meant something to those reading it. Maybe it was intended to indicate 'motivated by faith rather than politics', or maybe it was meant to indicate 'nut-job', I've no way of telling. I've no way to tell whether is is valid either. What I do know is that we have a source that states that this characterisation was used. If US 'Christian fundamentalists' are uncomfortable with this, their dispute is with the Norwegian police, not with Wikipedia. Like I said earlier, we can't exclude the comment because the phrase apparently means something else to some in the US. 04:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Andy. I looked at the deputy's quote again. The deputy is describing information found on Breivik's websites, not Breivik's religion, so I restated that. Also, since the wiki article is about a historical religious movement mainly in the US in the 20th Century, and not about Norway, I unlinked it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen the 1500 pager, so I stand corrected, I did want the Facebook page noted as not a RC. 174.134.205.151 (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nostalgikeren, 24 July 2011

Level of Evil Anders Behring Breivik is a level 15: Multiple murderer, on forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone's scale of evil. A scale of 22 levels made to measure the vicousness of a murderer. Ranging from people who kill in self defence to torture murderers.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil Nostalgikeren (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rejected. This is original research by synthesis as you are combining two sources (Stone's table and reports on Breivik's crime) in order to advance a position which is not in either source (that Behring is level 15). You need to find a reliable source which explicitly puts Anders Behring Breivik at level 15. Also, you cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik's description of Al Queda as only one of two successful militant organizations not an expression of admiration?

The following discussion 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.

---

User Johanneswilm,

Why do you disagree with NBC reporter Joshua Norman's assessment of Breivik's positive remarks about Al Queda tactics as misleading or inaccurate, to the extent that Norman's assessments must be edited out of Wikipedia? Scott P. (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to include it, but then do it in a manner that is appropriate in size in relation to all the other groups and individuals he claims to admire. This one is the odd one out, and just listing this one gives a wrong picture of his overall politics. Please discuss this further in the section of his politics above before readding it. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I now see above that you did not have the majority in your favor already once on this issue. Don't start new discussion sections for items that are being discussed already. As you clearly see above, your statement gives massively undue weight to the section on Bin Laden and you don't have consensus on including it. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus above was that a secondary source was needed. I provided that. Now you have to argue that you disagree with the reporting style of a CBS reporter. Exactly why and how do you feel that by noting CBS's reporting on Breivik's admiration of Al Queda that the article becomes skewed (as apparently you now believe that CBS is a skewed reporting source? Scott P. (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still putting undue weight on the issue, also in relation to the CBS article. Please discuss above. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Johanneswilm, you are repeating yourself and not answering my questions. Exactly how does reporting on the CBS article "skew" the article? If you could please answer this, perhaps I could better understand you. Any comments from others would be most welcome here too? Scott P. (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Johanneswilm,

The point in the discussion you reference was, that Scott P. quoted directly from the "manifesto", which was deemed WP:OR. Now that a relevant media organization, the CBS, has also reported on this, it is no longer WP:OR. Thus it is no longer barred from inclusion.

Please also read the discussion under Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Breivik's praise of Bin Laden's organization abilities is noteworthy, speaks of the man's ultimate goals and Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Religious section on why it is deemed of importance to his political views andagenda.

If – after doing so – you still see a problem with this, please come back here, and explain it. --Teiresia (T) 22:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That was part of the argument above. The other part was "massive undue weight" on this point. That point still stands. Please discuss above.--Johanneswilm (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

why is this being discussed here? this is totally disingenuous. please discuss this issue above.-- mustihussain (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Because above there is no discussion of how or why this material skews the article. Since we are asking you this question here, could you please answer it here? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please specify what you mean by "above". Can't you give a link, or even a paragraph name? --Teiresia (T) 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what he means by "above" is in the section above where they disagree with the CBS reporter, and say that no, Breivik didn't think there was anything about Al Queda worthy of positive regard by Breivik. If they can find any press sources for their view, then, by all means they may have a point, but to say that their opinions outweigh a valid press source, that is POV, no? Scott P. (talk) 23:00, 24 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.

2083 – A European Declaration of Independence

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.

No own article is needed. Page redirected.

---

This article — 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence — was just created, but looks like a candidate to be merged or redirected here, or deleted. This seems to be the best place for a discussion about it, just FYI. First Light (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy redirect per precedent: Industrial Society and Its Future aka. the Unabomber manifesto does not have an article on its own right, although the perpetrator and the manifesto are just as well known as this. --hydrox (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am for merge + Redirect to Anders Behring Breivik. No need for another lemma. --Teiresia (T) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe merge under section #Manifesto – this again follows precedent (Unabomber#Manifesto)? --hydrox (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this change if the manifesto was published?

Old Al (Talk) 21:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the manifesto as a seperate article

It seems notable enough to deserve a seperate page, as it has now been downloaded by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. It should be cleaned up, though.

Old Al (Talk) 21:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No - unless and until this 'manifesto' is discussed in depth by appropriate external reliable sources, there would be nothing to create an article from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case then there should at least be a saved version of the page, as it has been downloaded at an alarming rate. It's been (unofficially, so this probably invalidates it) called the "Mien Kampf of the 21st century." Just a suggestion.

Old Al (Talk) 21:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's "Mein Kampf". And what makes you draw that comparrison? Just because both are hate speech political manifestos by right-wing-weirdos from a germanic country? - I don't think it's had an impact remotely comparable to Hitler's work. And it probably, and hopefully, won't. --Teiresia (T) 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make up the nickname, it's just been called that online. And you're right, but it could in the future (so it may not deserve a page now).

• Redirect to here. It's essentially a Primary Source document better suited for WikiSource, with a link from this article in the external links. First Light (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between hosting the document itself, and discussing the document (critically) in an encyclopedic article. JonFlaune (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right - if enough relevant discussion by reliable sources about the document develops, then it could justify an article. First Light (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about whether this should be a separate article, but there is plenty of media coverage worldwide, and it's an enormous, and in many ways, unique, document. A full discussion of it might become too long for the biographical article. JonFlaune (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I believe it should be a section in the biographical article, having looked at Ted Kaczynski. JonFlaune (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I redirected it here. Someone may want to look at old versions, and grab any good info for this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:42, 24 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.

File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

2083. A European Declaration of Indepence - ebook

"Anders Behring Breivik have written a book with about 1500 pages, before he’d made his terror attack on July, 22th 2011 in Oslo (7 deaths) and a few hours later his amok on the isle Utøya (85 deaths), nearly to Oslo. The name of the book is called „2083. A European Declaration of Indepence“. Anders have written this script by the psudonym „Andrew Berwick“."

Source: http://thomaslachetta.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/2083-a-european-declaration-of-indepence-download-be-careful-anders-behring-breivik/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.198.216 (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Update. Now with download-link on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.198.216 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Links to Pamela Geller and Daniel Pipes

Why doesnt this artice mention his links to the zionists/muslim-haters Pamela Geller and Daniel Pipes. He has linked to Pamela Geller's blog and posted parts of her articles ad verbatim. Ditto for Daniel Pipes, whom he has praised by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shownberry (talk • contribs) 06:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the German news paper "Die Welt" he also praised Henryk Broder, a person very (in)famous in Germany: http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article13504232/Terrorist-veroeffentlicht-vor-der-Tat-Manifest.html --89.204.153.215 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I can read German reasonably, but can't find any mention of Henryk Broder in the article linked. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Punkt 2.89, dort unter der Überschrift: "The Rape of Europe – emigration of indigenous Europeans?", müsste unten auf der Seite 696 beginnen. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So the source is his manifesto, not the article you link to? P.S. Since this is the English Wikipedia, you should preferably write your posts in English for the benefit of others. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, yes you are right. The article in the newspaper "Die Welt" seems to have been changed meanwhile, maybe Herr Broder has intervened? And of course the manifesto is in English, I was too focused to German. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

New York Times on Anders Behring Breivik

This should put to rest ANY discussion on Notability and BLP1E:

NYT on Breivik

Why? You have one of the most reliable sources in the world's press establishing him as notable, not only for his crimes, but for his manifesto, and for the politics it represents, which are novel if not new. It clear this subject has gained RS notability, and the RS agree fully. --Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just ask yourself one question: if it wasn't for this one event, would you consider that this person satisfied the notability criteria? I mean... if that had not happened, do you think we could have an appropriately referenced article about him?  Chzz  ►  07:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If this had not happened, we wouldn't have an article on the attacks either, your question is nonsensical. He was involved in two separate events, the Oslo bombings and the Utoya killings. And, if it's ever connected, the stuff that happened in 2001 as well. Silverseren^C 08:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. But why do you think this to be important? After all it has happened. So what? --Teiresia (T) 08:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mirror of Breiviks manifesto and video (alleged SPAM)

I just reintroduced the information about the mirror site, deleted by user Pristino here, which I had added here.

I myself was not very happy to add this particular mirror, as the sites main object seems to be a somewhat shady money making scheme. However, it is the only mirror site known to me, and the mirror page itself doesn't mention – or link to – the commercial pages of the site.

In my edit summary I also stated the reason why I think that the links to the mirror are necessary:

• The YouTube video is regularly deleted
• Kevin Slaughters server has had bandwith problems

Both conditions still persist. Indeed at the moment of this writing Kevins site is down with a "500 Internal Server Error".

I think that access to the files is important for people to be able to see for themselves what ABB and the attacks were all about. So until a more respectable mirror site emerges, I urge all editors to leave the links to this one intact.

Thank you, --Teiresia (T) 07:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Have removed all links to the probably shady/spamming mirror site except the one to the .docx-Source, as I haven't found another source of this yet. --Teiresia (T) 08:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative links to media created by AAB / source document of "manifesto" / other research materials

Cerejota removed the links to the mirror sites of the video and the "manifesto" here, with this rationale: "better external link, no need for "mirror", dox unsave and URLs looks fishy".

I don't want to start an edit war or an argument over this, so I will leave it this way in the article.

• However: To watch the video at the URL now referenced, a YouTube account is necessary. Thus a potential viewer has to identify herself to Google Inc. in order to see it. As there are many reason why users might want to avoid this, I think linking to an alternative ressource here is in order:

- mirror of "Knights Templar 2083" a YouTube video uploaded by Breivik

• Cerejota is right when s/he states, that Office Open XML documents are potentially unsafe. So a warning might be in order: Downloader beware! Opening the document linked to by the following hyperlink might harm the integrity of your computers software!. However the .docx-formatted file might (haven't had the time to check, yet) contain metadata, that is not available from the PDF-Version, and that might be valuable to researchers. So here's the link:

- 2083 — source of AABs "manifesto": A European Declaration of Independence in Office Open XML format

Again: Downloader beware! Opening the document linked to by the preceeding hyperlink might harm the integrity of your computers software!

I might add, that PDF is also a format that is vulnerable to many exploits, though not as much as Office Open XML is.

• Cerejota also removed the link to the other research materials, posted on irc-urls.net, without giving a rationale. Here it is again:

- Alleged Backup of Anders Behring Breviks Facebook page. Links to all his posts on document.no and a backup of his Twitter profile.

On a personal note, I'd like to stress, that I don't endorse the views expressed in these documents, but believe that the possibility of anonymous access to them is important. --Teiresia (T) 12:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Height

Is his height really important?--Wustenfuchs 08:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. According to infobox guidelines, it should only be reported when it is a notable feature of the subject. WWGB (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Religious section

Too much volume is given in the above mentioned section to his views about Israel (more than half of the section!) while he is clearly right wing European with opinions on many other issues aside for Israel. It seem like someone have tried to push the I-P conflict into this article. Clearly if Breivik was driven out of his ideology when he murdered 93 people, there is no indication that his support in Israel played any role in it. My point is that the religious section is clearly the most important for understanding his motives and yes is edited in bias manner that mean to bump Israel into something it's not related to. Please re-edit this section. --Gilisa (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just your personal bias. I assume you object to a mass murderer being "pro-Israel" more than to his being "pro-Christian" because you care about Israel more than about Christianity. For somebody who cares more about Christianity than about Israel, the opposite would apply. Both would be wrong for the purpopses of Wikipedia. The point here is that neither Israel nor Christianity are "related to" a madman shooting teenagers who just happened to have expressed sympathy for Christianity and for Israel. The problem is that this is a very recent article that will need to be given time to mature. The proper thing would have been to wait with creating a bio article on the attacker by virtue of WP:1E until substantial secondary sources become available. People are too excited for that, and indeed calls for moderation and sticking to best procedure have been ignored by speedy close votes. This is understandable because people are emotional about this thing. It doesn't mean that it was the correct approach. This article will just have to stay tagged for cleanup until things calm down and the excited people find some other article to keep from developing encyclopedic qualities. --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He has stated himself, and it has been stated by reliable sources, that Christian fundamentalist (Christian Zionist), pro-Israeli, and anti-Muslim views were central in his worldview. He has been active in a number of pro-Israeli organisations/websites in Norway. This needs to be included in the article. JonFlaune (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Claim: Christian Fundamentalist

He has indeed stated, that he thinks of himself as a Christian. But he has made it very clear, that he sees Christianity (in my opinion: merely) as a cutural tool to be used to unite Europe against its perceived enemies. He speaks of his respect for Odinists (Asatru Heathens), and (on page 1360 of the "manifesto") also accepts them as members of his(?) "Crusader Organisation", and advises them to decorate their graves with runes. He writes, that to be a Christian in his eyes, the actual belief in God is not important, but only the belief in traditional european-christian values and culture. – All of this makes it very clear to me that he is by no means a christian fundamentalist. Christian fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and Sola Scriptura, not in the equality of polytheistic views to their own.

The term "fundamentalist" is often used interchangeably with "extremist" or even just "crackpot" in the European context. I think this is what led Deputy Police Chief Andresen to say: "We have no more information than ... what has been found on (his) own websites, which is that is goes toward the right (wing) and that it is, so to speak, Christian fundamentalist." – One must also take into account, that this statement was made at a time when no-one could have had an in-depth analysis of his thinking.

He may be a Christian, for some definitions of the word, he may be a fundamentalist for some definitions of the word, but he clearly is not a christian fundamentalist. --Teiresia (T) 7:57 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Hours before the shootings occurred, Breivik released an anti-Muslim video detailing that many Christian groups desired a violent staged revolution in Europe to kill the "cultural Marxists" who were, as he saw it, working to weaken Christendom and the "cultural purity" of Europe. He advocated the organization called the "Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon." His video urged Christian Europeans to be “justiciar knights,” and rely on the virtues of the crusaders and other Christians in Europe who had battled Muslims in the name of Christianity.

Breivik wrote that it was essential to "fight" for a "Judeo-Christian Europe", praised the rejection of "anti-Jewish views" and stated that "the new Conservatist ‘new right’ is rapidly developing into a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad alliance." He applauds Israel, and considers Israel to be a victim of alleged "cultural Marxists" who "see Israel as a 'racist' state".Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaronwayneodonahue, is the above intended to be a kind of respone to my analysis? If so: Please clarify! --Teiresia (T) 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaronwayneodonahue - I too have seen the same video, and I do not see it as support for the idea of Breivik as a "Christian fundamentalist". At one point, the video points to "Christiandom" as one of the ideologies that along with Naziism, Communism, and Islam, are responsible for mass genocide of Europeans. Though in any event, the video and manifesto contain a lot of contradictory material and as always with Wikipedia, one must be careful not to carry out original research based on interpretation of primary sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I also want to weigh in that I also think the descriptor "Christian fundamentalist" is inaccurate and should not be included either in this article, nor "2011 Norway attacks". This descriptor is based entirely on very early news reports that were off-the-cuff assessments. As Breivik's own writing has come out, it is clear that his primary ideological motivation was as a "conservative nationalist" of the English Defense League/Geert Wilders variety (albeit with pro-Israel beliefs that are at variance with many such groups), and that his religious beliefs were quite secondary to this. He does clearly describe himself as a Christian and this descriptor, of course, should be maintained. But I see no indication whatsoever that his beliefs fall into what would largely be known as "fundamentalist" Christianity, particularly given his tendencies toward esoteric Masonic/Templar ideas. (And before anybody starts pointing the finger and claiming I'm trying to whitewash unfavorable coverage of Christian fundamentalism, note that I'm a leftie atheist and a strong opponent of religious fundamentalism of any kind. I am simply interested in accuracy here.) Peter G Werner (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Claim: Christian Zionist

Yes, I think it might be fair to label him as a non-jewish Zionist of sorts, given his pro-Israeli stance. But Christian Zionism, as the term is understood, is something else, alltogether. Christian Zionists are people with a very special view on Eschatology, and rely heavily (and only) on scripture to back up their ideology. I have as of yet not seen a single instance of ABB using scripture as underpinning of his ideas. He is not a Christian Zionist in any accepted use of the word.

My personal take on his ideology, as far as I understand it now, given that I can only read so much in a short timeframe, is: He somehow wants to save/defend Europe/the Western world, which he defines by means of culture. He perceives Islam and "cultural Marxism"/"multiculturalism" as the main threats to this culture. The former as an external agressor, the latter as weakening European defenses against the former. To combat them, he proposes cultural isolation and "purging". For him the struggle is foremost about "Europeanness" vs. Islam.

Exchange "culture" with "race" and "muslim" with "jew", and you end up with the mindset of... I think it is only very thinly veiled. --Teiresia (T) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hours before the shootings occurred, Breivik released an anti-Muslim video detailing that many Christian groups desired a violent staged revolution in Europe to kill the "cultural Marxists" who were, as he saw it, working to weaken Christendom and the "cultural purity" of Europe. He advocated the organization called the "Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon." His video urged Christian Europeans to be “justiciar knights,” and rely on the virtues of the crusaders and other Christians in Europe who had battled Muslims in the name of Christianity.

Breivik wrote that it was essential to "fight" for a "Judeo-Christian Europe", praised the rejection of "anti-Jewish views" and stated that "the new Conservatist ‘new right’ is rapidly developing into a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad alliance." He applauds Israel, and considers Israel to be a victim of alleged "cultural Marxists" who "see Israel as a 'racist' state".Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaronwayneodonahue, is the repeated inclusion of the above paragraph intended to be a kind of respone to my analysis? If so: Please clarify! --Teiresia (T) 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But while we are at it: Your quote actually illustrates my point. Do you see how he speaks of Christendom (christian people), not Christianity (the religion and ideology)? Do you see how he speaks of the virtues of the crusaders, not their beliefs?

In my analysis, this points to what role "Christianity" has in his mind: It is a political tool to be used against his enemies.

This is mirrored in his views of Islam, of which he explicitly writes that it is a political ideology, rather than a religion.

His admiration of Osama Bin Laden's organizational talents, when seen in context with his attempt to use Christianity as an ideological lever to unite Europe, and his attempts to inspire European "cultural warriors" to "embrace martyrdom" in order to be "assured the reward of imperishable glory in the Kingdom of Heavens" reveals his envy of the jihadists possibilities to indoctrinate human beings to the point where they are little more than human warheads, and his attempt to reproduce it. --Teiresia (T) 19:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaronwayneodonahue, we heard you first time-there is no need to make multiple copy paste from the previous version of the article to the TP. Breivik also praised the Serbians who fought the Bosnian people (who are Muslim), he also praised the UK-though none of that is mentioned in this article and no one argues, openly or in subtle manner, that his support in UK show its real nature or that his support in it motivated him to take his horrible actions. It seems like few editors here try to emphasis his positive opinion (and therefore perhaps rare in European country like Norway) about Israel much more than it needed. The way it was putted here I suggest that Israel would not be mentioned in the article at all as there are problems of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV/weasel words in it and until solved, the name Israel should not be included it.--Gilisa (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

None of this is of any relevance to the article: it isn't up to us to decide what motivates Breivik, or to decide whether he is 'Christian', 'fundamentalist', or anything else. We have a reliable source that quotes the Norwegian police as describing him as such, and we can thus state that they described him so. Regarding the whole 'pro-Israel' thing, I think that there has been excessive emphasis put on this by some contributors - please try to replicate what the balance of external sources are saying, rather than engaging in point-scoring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal no 5, citing WP:PERP

Citing the relevant section of policy for convenience:

---

A person who is notable only for [...] committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.

Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.

Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the crimina l[...]in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

1. 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. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role (Example: Seung-Hui Cho)
   • Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

---

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to apply this to the current topic. --dab (𒁳) 12:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

See the former discussions which addressed this issue and decided to keep the article.

• Deletion proposal: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anders_Behring_Breivik (result: keep)
• Merger proposal no. 1: Talk:2011_Norway_attacks/Archive_1#Merge_from_Anders_Behring_Breivik (result: not merged)
• Merger proposal no. 2: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anders_Behring_Breivik (result: not merged) (permanent link)
• Merger proposal no. 3: Talk:2011_Norway_attacks#Merger_proposal (result: not merged) (permanent link)
• Merger proposal no. 4: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_ErrantX_and_Anders_Behring_Breivik (result: not merged) (permanent link)
• Merger proposal no. 5: This section

Yesterday, 2011 Norway attacks had 276,000 readers, while this biographical article, despite not being linked from the main page (unlike the other article), had 476,000 readers.

Also note that Anders Behring Breivik has biographical articles in over 20 Wikipedia editions.

Why do we need more of these discussions?

"alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured" obviously doesn't apply in this case, he was caught in the act of shooting close to hundred teenagers, and has admitted to carrying out both attacks, and written a manifesto on it. JonFlaune (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think the people who demand a merger would have a very strong case if the policy were "Editors must not create an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.". But that is not what the policy says. I reiterate my opposition to merging and redirecting this article, and I agree with JonFlaune above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Merging this article would not be right. This person has done one of the worst massacres in scandinavian history. a separate article for him is needed even though his crime is awful.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll admit that this annoying policy (why do we have two versions of ONEEVENT?) sounds pretty bad for the article. Nonetheless it does allow two different articles for considerations of space, and if people see fit to argue deletion at this early stage, we should also consider that the story of the massacre has 98 different victims, two different crime scenes, search and rescue, international reactions ... will we really have room to shoehorn in a bunch of material about Anders' web posting habits, shell companies, gun-buying trips, and political associations when the dust settles? Let the inclusionists do their job, and these articles should both be up to 200k of non-duplicative material before we know it. Wnt (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ illustrates my point perfectly: Appeal to emotion instead of accepting that this is Wikipedia, and then read applicable policy. I accept that people like BabbaQ will be in the majority for the next few days, until this is out of the headlines. And it will not be productive to appeal to reason during this period. I simply want to state that once the first flurry of emotional edits dies down, you will not be able to appeal to "this has been discussed". Of course it "has been discussed". And always immediately been shouted down by BabbaQ-type of "but he did such a horrible thing" comments, as if this had any bearing on the question. Sjakkalle, what part of "unless and until this is decided by a court of law" do you find difficult to interpret?

Why do I even care about this question? Because this article is doing the perp a favour. The message is "hey, if you go and shoot people, you will be a celebrity, and Wikipedia will immediately carry an article about you and your twisted manifesto". If you think this is far-fetched, you have clearly no understanding of the motivations behind a killing-spree (read Herostratus). We have a real responsibility here, go and read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. You have written a manifesto on how to save the world, but Wikipedia deleted the article you wrote about it based on WP:SELFPUB? Well, you know what to do now.

I have no doubt that we eventually will have an article about this person. Once there is substantial secondary literature to draw upon, and he has sat in front of a judge. Keeping this article online before this happens is creating a shrine to the attacker, and doing exactly what he counted on when he went out to shoot dozens of people to get the world's attention. This individual is notable exactly, and strictly limited to, the 2011 Norway attacks. This is why he should properly be discussed in context, at 2011 Norway attacks#Suspected_perpetrator. By maintaining this page, you state that his biography is notable, and that he merits attention as a celebrity, a writer and a political thinker. If you think that this is wrong, congratulations, you have just understood the point of the WP:PERP and WP:1E guidelines. --dab (𒁳) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No deletion, no merging. Period. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question you asked me, I have no problem understanding the the phrase. I fully understand that legally, Breivik does not have the status of "guilty" or "convicted". The current article does not describe him as such either. But the policy does not say that being convicted is an absolute requirement for a separate article. The coverage this person is receiving is broad and wide enough already.

Also, I feel that your bolded statement: "this article is doing the perp a favour", is the exact sort of emotional appeal which you are arguing against. Wikipedia seeks only to inform. Wikipedia does not take sides, and we do not include or exclude articles to promote or suppress any point of view. Whether the presence of the article is doing Breivik a favour is basically irrelevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article Herostratus, you'll see that the ancients tried to forbid mention of his name. Instead of condemning him to obscurity, this action probably is the reason why you remember him. While doubtless this Wikipedia article may seem like some kind of Eternal Memorial, in truth it is one of billions to come, from which meaning will emerge only in aggregate discussion, or in the dispassionate research of the impartial scholar. Like the Lost Ark, this person will disappear more thoroughly in the warehouse than in the tomb. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Like the Lost Ark, this person will disappear more thoroughly in the warehouse than in the tomb." - pure genius, and very true! 92.5.239.119 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Considering that this is the fifth merger proposal (sixth if you count the AfD) in three days, I think it should just be speedy closed. If the four prior proposals concluded that it shouldn't be merged, then it is just being annoying at this point and trying to wikilawyer the process by trying to have an excessive number of discussions in order to achieve the one necessary to merge it. Silverseren^C 01:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove List of murderers by number of victims?

Should the See also section be removed? List of murderers by number of victims is for convicted serial and spree killers, and specifically excludes acts of terrorism. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think I agree, but I am not sure. Certainly these attacks qualify as terrorism, but I also think the exclusionary note is intended to exclude bomb blasts and deliberate plane crashes which kill lots of people with one explosion. I believe the list intends to include spree shootings such as what happened at Utøya, even though it is terrorism as well. As an example, I note that John Allen Muhammad who was convicted of terrorism, is on the list as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends on a persons definition of terror. The old definition of the terror is an act that is perpetrated in order to cause fear. The newer definition also includes religious and political goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostalgikeren (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Fertilizer

If this person's farm purchased a normal size order of fertilizer, and if there is no report of fertilizer being used in the bombing, then how is this relevant? II think there is some synthesis in stating that he bought fertilizer and fertilizer can be used to make bombs. These statements are of course true, but in this context the statements appear to be drawing the reader to a conclusion that therefore he used this fertilizer to make bombs. If he did not use fertilizer to make bombs, then an order of farm supplies is irrelevant. If a reliable source indicates that this order of fertilizer was made to make the bombs used, then it would be appropriate to include this information. 72Dino (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is not original research by synthesis since the cited source (Reuters) clearly reported this in connection with the bomb attack. That is, the synthesis is made by Reuters, not by us, therefore the synthesis is not "original". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Military service

"Breivik completed his service in the Norwegian Army,[44]" is wrong, he clearly states in his manifesto that he didn't do military service. (Page 1410) 83.93.216.46 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The manifesto is primary source.--Shrike (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Norwegian media also reports that he was exempt from duty, article updated accordingly. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Entire section removed under dubious pretences

User:Gilisa has removed an entire section with references simply because he/she doesn't like that it shows the individiual's love for Israel and Zionism. Please make your case on the talk page.

Undue weight? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather call it vandalism. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just revert it. Wikipedia is not censored, it doesn't matter if he doesn't like the material. It seems pretty significant for his political beliefs, i.e. his struggle for a "Judeo-Christian Europe" without muslims. "the new Conservatist ‘new right’ is rapidly developing into a pro-Israel, anti-Jihad alliance" seems to be the core idea of his, and it's reliably sourced.

The claim that the source is a "blog" is nonsense, the source is an article by James S. Robbins of the The Washington Times, source no. 2 is also an article written by a professional journalist (Johan Boef) working for EénVandaag. Some media use the term "blog" for journalistic articles. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which states: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. JonFlaune (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bring the section back, please! --89.204.153.215 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He reiterates this in his manifesto (p. 650), stating

"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."

On p. 1400, he refers to Israel as "our primary ally" (our=his supposed "cultural conservative" movement), and writes:

"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. They wish to include the Jews in our fight against multiculturalism and the Islamisation of Europe. Israel is at the forefront of global Jihad. If Israel falls, then all the forces currently targeting Israel (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood financed by Saudi, Iran etc.) will start to focus full heartedly on Europe."

These views have been reported on by reliable sources: The Jerusalem Post writes that his manifesto lays out a worldview including "extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism, and venomous attacks on Marxism and multiculturalism" (Norway massacre suspect aired anti-Muslim, pro-Israel views).

The Sri Lanka Guardian: "Breivik is apparently an avid fan of U.S.-based anti-Muslim activists such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, and has repeatedly professed his ardent support for Israel. Breivik's political ideology is illuminated by looking at comments he posted to the right-wing site document.no" (The Norway Massacre and the nexus of Islamophobia and Right-wing Zionism)

JTA: "Norway killer espoused new right-wing, pro-Israel philosophy"

JonFlaune (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look of my comments under Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Religious section, as much of this also applies here. --Teiresia (T) 18:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"a real European hero" etc. in the introduction

The introduction includes the statement

"He has described himself as "a real European hero", "the savior of Christianity" and "the greatest defender of cultural-conservatism in Europe since 1950".[14]"

I suggest this is removed from the introduction, it doesn't really add much to the article's introduction that he considers himself "a real hero". We can discuss his views in regard to Christianity etc. below. JonFlaune (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur. This article has become highly suspect over the past few hours with narrative editing rather than factual editing. Court documents should help the construction of this article over time. His manifesto was copied from Ted Kaczynski.

98.111.158.205 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not acceptable for this page to contain potentially erroneous, highly inflammatory information. I demand any references to Mr. Breivik's political views be removed, as they are based on nothing more than a facebook page which was altered after he had been incarcerated. This information is damaging Wikipedia and the discourse and must be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.5.20 (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not going to remove a description of his political views, which motivated his political terrorist attacks. The description is mostly not based on his Facebook page, but, inter alia, on a 1500-page manifesto and statements by the police, and on comments he left on Internet forums, reported on by reliable sources. JonFlaune (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Alleged international Knights Templar "Order"

Two new sources (Norwegian), cites from his manifesto that he claims to be part of an "international order", the "Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici" or PCCTS (Knights Templar). He claims it has 15 to 80 ordinated members, and an unknown number of "civilian" members. One of the main initiators was allegely a Serb "war hero", whom he met in Liberia. More here; [12], [13] – Bellatores (t.) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian anti-communists

Regarding the category Norwegian anti-communists, is there a source for this? He was likely anti-communist, but he was also anti social democracy and opposed to any moderate political party in Norway. JonFlaune (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is nonsense anyway. So what? Given his politics, this is a given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks within quotations

Please do not put Wikilinks onto words within quotations, as this violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader". There is no need whatsoever to link such terms a 'Christian fundamentalist', or 'Israel' in any case, under WP:OVERLINK - Our readers will know what 'Christian fundamentalism' means, and they certainly know what 'Israel' does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. It serves my purposes. (PS: I have no idea what the deputy police chief means by Christian fundamentalism in this context; maybe it's a European thing). --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I wrote earlier, our article on the subject covers it from an entirely US-based perspective, where it is fairly well-defined and restricted to a particular line in Protestantism. Breivik's ideas certainly don't seem to conform to that, but I can understand the characterisation in a broader sense - though since we are quoting someone, we don't have to define exactly what this means - indeed it would arguably be WP:OR to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, it just means: Christian (crackpot) extremist in the European context. --Teiresia (T) 21:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And that means a person who was baptized and doesn't want Islam to take over in Europe? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nostalgikeren, 24 July 2011

Must be added that this is a world record killing spree surpassing the old record of Woo Bum-Kon of 57 killings. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rampage_killers&oldid=441179735

Nostalgikeren (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Some more sources on his political beliefs

In an article in the Financial Times, it's pointed out that "he’s representative of a new type of rightwing extremism. Rather than the old neo-Nazis they are pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam" (Robin Wigglesworth, "Killer personifies rise of new far-right", Financial Times, July 24, 2011[14]). JonFlaune (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Too bad I can't read it, as I have no account there. (I know they have "free as in beer" accounts.) Shall I go through the trouble of registering? - Or will you include the info from the article? --Teiresia (T) 21:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik - 2083 A European Declaration of Independence.pdf Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik - 2083 A European Declaration of Independence.pdf, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of downloads of his manifesto

Is there any way to get a solid number on the number of times its been downloaded? I was viewing http://www.2shared.com/file/M-s-2fBD/2083-AEuropeanDeclarationofInd.html?cau2=403tNull and before it went down it had more than 50,000 downloads, and I have seen multiple links online to different places to download it, via websites and torrents. Old Al (Talk) 22:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

try http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/nothing-says-crazy-quite-like-a-1500-page-manifesto/ or http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf at this blog post, solidprinciples.com were the same site that backed up the PDF of the Facebook profile 174.134.205.151 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Randy's right-wing Christian Blog

It is not a source. It is pure biased right-wing Christian propaganda. Stop it. It is a BLOG. Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

what it being used as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The WP:RS status of the claimed Manifesto

Hi ,http://www.kevinislaughter.com/2011/anders-behring-breivik-2083-a-european-declaration-of-independence-manifesto/ is not a WP:rs and is not confirmed to be him and clearly needs some time to settle and see - Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources link the manifesto to him, so we can quote them. The link you gave points to his tax returns. Is this relevant? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - Corrected - they are only claiming possible/unconfirmed - Claimed Manifesto relating to the Oslo Bombings/Shootings. it is no way a WP:rs yet. Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt he is the author. He even names his parents (full names) and extended family in the manuscript and includes all sorts of personal details of himself and his family. Reliable sources report him as the author because it is proven beyond doubt. Reliable sources do not refer to the manuscript as a "claimed manifesto" because everyone, reliable sources included, know for a fact it's written by him. JonFlaune (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of doubt, in fact it has doubt written all over it. We have plenty of time ot wait and see before we add it to our article. As at the WP:RSN . Which reliable sources? Off2riorob (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, there is no doubt at all. He sent out the manuscript himself and reliable sources refer to him as the author. Sources such as the NRK[15] and numerous others. Where are your sources for the alleged "doubt"? JonFlaune (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7724781 - links like this are not reliable to confirm such a claim - we need really strong sources to attribute such as this, please for a detailed discussion and evaluation post the links and don't just say - numerous others. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It's the government broadcaster and the most reliable source in the country and the equivalent of the BBC. This manifesto is reported on in every newspaper in Europe and elsewhere. JonFlaune (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the sentiment, but I feel compelled to point out that Verifiability is vital in things like this. English language sources are highly desirable.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Off2riofob - we need only the most credible sources here. This is an important article and evey RS are liable to get things wrong at this point in the feeding frenzy. Just look at the way the casualties have been revised, and you'd think counting dead bodies would be pretty straight forward. Better to leave it out until it's fully confirmed than to confuse the article. Remember, we are talking a a BLP so we should use the highest standard. Also, labeling his beliefs, pary affiliation, etc... should be avoided at this point as well. Clearly his main self-identity was not as a member of any particular mainstream or even radical group, but, rather, he defined myself in terms of what he was AGAINST, i.e. muslims, Islam, non-indigenous European immigration, etc. DerekMD (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the New York Times sufficiently reliable: Christian Extremist Charged in Norway?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that although he refers to himself as "Andrew Berwick" (an anglicization of his name), he openly refers to his father and other family members using the name Breivik. He is not trying to disguise his identity. JonFlaune (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Norwegian police are verifying if twin attack suspect Anders Behring Breivik was the author of a manifesto and a video which appeared on the web, Norwegian media said. [...] The document, headlined "A European Declaration of Independence," is written by Andrew Berwick, but the author says in the text this is an anglicized version of Anders Breivik. In the 1,500-page document the author expresses his extreme anti-Muslim political views and describes the attacks which are to be carried out." [16] JonFlaune (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The manifesto should be quotable, but note that Section 3 is subject to an elaborate (and preposterous) disclaimer about being a "work of fiction" to avoid various stupid European censorship laws. As a result, we can't really say for sure that he demands all Muslims be baptized and change their names by 2020 - maybe it's just a fiction. Though some points in this fiction - like the part about knowing the terrain from page 827 - sound awfully much like fact. Bottom line: we'll have to leave it to reliable sources to break ground on a lot of these points. Besides, with 1500 pages to choose from, if we just have Wikipedia authors choose favorite quotes, there will be quite a lot of arbitrary personal choice involved. Better to mention bits of it in reference notes to help explain claims made by the secondary source cited. Wnt (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Favorite quotes"? Are we all forgetting that we're talking about someone who (allegedly) just gunned down a bunch of teenagers?  Chzz  ►  03:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

By "favorite" I mean, most likely, quotes which seem to indicate the source of his pathology - especially, quotes which seem to link his rampage to particular ideologies and organizations. Thus I mean quotes that editors like to use rather than quotes the editors like. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh... this is why discussion is a good thing, I think. Eventually, everyone says something that lends to understanding their viewpoint well. Chzz, we should be discussing an article here, not "talking about someone who (allegedly) just gunned down a bunch of teenagers". The article topic may be that "someone who gunned down people", but... Wikipedia is not a forum. I understand where you're coming from, and I realize that what I'm saying here can sound a bit crass, but that sort of emotional detachment is more important in cases like this than anywhere else. Wnt is correct here, as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik is blogger Fjordman: "When I first started writing as Fjordman I focused on how to “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed." 2083 manifesto pg 704. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.159.226 (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Video Games

The article mentions he liked to play World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2. We have it under "Beliefs" and that seems like an odd place to put it. What else should we put there? Does anyone have any information on his favourite foods? I think if we're to keep this piece of information it must be expanded into a plethora of tidbits about his life hobbies to make it look like it's actually important. Right now it's really out of place with this alleged killing business and political ideology and we can't have it just sitting there. I propose a massive expansion on his "Interests" section to involve other cool but irrelevant things like whether or not he liked cats. What do you guys think? Crazybilby (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, on page 1407, he says he has no favorite food, and that "all cultures have excellent dishes". In all seriousness though, I agree. His preference for video games seems hardly important, aside from the fact that he used WoW as a cover for his activities around family/friends. 70.109.187.152 (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is worth inclusion because according to some erports, he used Modern Warfare 2 to train for the massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shownberry (talk • contribs) 06:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the manifesto sheds some light on this: (p. 841)

3.26 Avoiding suspicion from relatives, neighbours and friends

Present a ”credible project/alibi” to your friends, co-workers and family. Announce to your closest friends, co-workers and family that you are pursuing a ”project” that can at least partly justify your ”new pattern of activities” (isolation/travel) while in the planning phase.

F example, tell them that you have started to play World of Warcraft or any other online MMO game and that you wish to focus on this for the next months/year. This ”new project” can justify isolation and people will understand somewhat why you are not answering your phone over long periods. Tell them that you are completely hooked on the game (raiding dungeons etc). Emphasise to them that this is a dream you have had since you were a kid. If they stress you, insist and ask them to respect your decision. You will be amazed on how much you can do undetected while blaming this game. If your planning requires you to travel, say that you are visiting one of your WoW friends, or better yet, a girl from your ”guild” (who lives in another country). No further questions will be raised if you present these arguments.

Blaming WoW is also quite strategic due to another factor. It is usually considered ”tabu” or even shameful in our society today to be hooked on an MMO. By revealing ”this secret” to your close ones you are therefore (to them at least) entrusting them with your innermost secret. Usually they will ”contribute” to keeping this secret for you which can be very beneficial. (If people from your ”secondary” social circle ask them they will even usually ”lie” on your behalf (giving you alibi), in order to keep your MMO project a secret.

This text is repeated in brief on the following page as a "long term cover"; homosexuality is the other one. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's actually interesting and should've been clarified to mention what you said as to make it clear the purpose of mentioning it. Crazybilby (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps the World of Warcraft use could be mentioned as part of his cover for the preparation, but even so it is still fairly minor. Although he states that he used MW2 to "train" for the attacks, it's not worth mentioning since it wouldn't have contributed substantially to his ability to carry out the attacks - compare this with if he had been spending a lot of time at firing ranges getting coached on his shooting technique, which would have assisted him. It's a paragraph that might find a place in a book about the attacks, for example, but is not important enough to have a place within the limited space of a WP article. His political, religious and social beliefs, and his methods for obtaining and preparing the equipment used in the attacks are far more relevant. Dallas (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Contents of the Manifesto

• <ref name="Breivik 2011">Andrew Berwick (Anders Behring Breivik) (Jul. 22). 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)</ref>
• orther link http://politisktinkorrekt.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf

I have now gone through his 1500 page manifesto and want to present some "original research." Most of the material, in fact all of the core ideological material is copied from someone else. About 500 pages is derived from Fjordman. The introduction, titled What is “Political Correctness”? is in fact a copy of “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation. This document is a critisism of the Frankfurt School and what the authors call "Cultural Marxism". If you don't have time to read the Political Correctness book, a summary of the same content can be found here: Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America. This DVD featuring Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan seems to be related: Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

A full table of contents for the manifesto is available here.:

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is now being reported that the manifesto is largely a copy of the Unabomber's manifesto. NRK article on the manifesto (Norwegian) Inge (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to other reports he has also copy pasted from wikipedia. Inge (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@Petri, a rule on wikipedia is that easy to verify facts can be state in wikipedia. So in your case, you can state that X is copy of Y if both are online, downloadable, to support your statement. No need to wait journalists ; ) Yug (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The report says, that he copied large parts of the Unabomber's manifesto, not that AABs manifesto was largely a copy of... Big difference! --Teiresia (T) 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

:Politically Unabomber is pretty far from him, imho, and by quick reading I did not see any quotations from his manifesto, nor does he mention Theodore Kaczynski or Unabomber anywhere. Such claims in media appear incorrect. --hydrox (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Another read shows that chapter 2.17 in Breivik manifesto is an adapted version of the second chapter of Industrial Society and Its Future, aka. the Unabomber manifesto, with some words replaced. These claims need to be further investigated. --hydrox (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an error in the part of the article that mentions this. "The text also copies sections of the Unabomber manifesto[...] exchanging the words 'leftists' for 'cultural Marxists' and 'black people' for 'muslims'." Those should be the other way around, i.e. "'cultural Marxists' for 'leftists'" etc. Kaczynski used the term 'leftists', Breivik used 'cultural Marxists', and looking up any dictionary definition of the word 'exchange' will demonstrate that the latter was exchanged for the former. I can't edit this as the page is protected... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.103.41 (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

“Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology

After comparing individual chapters I can confirm that Introduction to the compendium - “2083” -, spanning pages 11-37 of the PDF document is a copy of the following book by the Free Congress Foundation – with minor alterations and omissions.

• William S. Lind, ed. (2004). “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology. Free Congress Foundation. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The changes include substituting "Western Europe" for "America" and omitting the examples from U.S. universities in Chapter III, Political Correctness in Higher Education by T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr..

The chapter in the manifesto lists the following sources:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
• http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/pcessay.aspx

I cannot see that the Wikipedia article would be used for anything. The freecongress.org domain is off-line. The book is now hosted by lifesitenews.com.

I am not going to make changes to the article and hope that someone else adds this information. I would like to see a dedicated chapter to the manifesto. As it stands now, the article does not even have a reference to Fjordman, although most of the manifesto is credited to him. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) --

Is it original research to use his own writing as a source?

I note several blogs, such as this one[17], have been going through Breivik's online postings and noting who he had commented favourably about. (An English translation of his posts on document.no can be found here:[18]) They include, amongst others: the blogs Fjordman, Atlas Shrugs and Little Green Footballs, the writers Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer, and the groups the Progress Party of Norway, English Defence League and Stop Islamisation of Europe. A few of these are already mentioned in the article. My question is, is it acceptable to use his own writing as a source for who he approved of, or would that be original research (or potentially a violation of BLP policy)? Robofish (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you used those blogs to identify who to mention they would not be a RS for analysing his writing. Using his writing directly is not exactly against the rules (see WP:SELFPUB) but I think it is getting into "interpretive" territory to pick our particular people he was interested in. I suggest that this is something likely to be commented on (perhaps in the longer term) by reliably published sources. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The manifesto qualifies as a {{primary}} source. It can be cited, but we don't base any arguments or any conclusion on it. It can also not be cited selectively. It should only be cited to illustrate a point made based on a separate, quotable secondary source. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Worth remembering that he self-identifies the compendium as a new kind of fiction (Legal disclaimer), and says things like

Obviously, I can’t reveal any sensitive information so the above characteristic might be what I want you to believe and not the actual truth:-).

I guess there are policies about in-character or in-world fiction-related articles on here, but sadly much of what he wrote is real. We should certainly be aware of him as an unreliable narrator though. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Victims

If I have the numbers right, 10 died in downtown Oslo from the car or truck bomb, one more today died in the hospital. In the second attack, 82 were shot and additional youth and adults are not found and could have drowned in the cold water trying to escape the island. This brings the total number murdered to 93. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

After Behring Breivik's Monday court appearance, all news outlets continue to use the words, "at least 93 killed". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) PS: granted, it becomes 'murder' only after a conviction.

"Live coverage from Norway as Anders Behring Breivik makes his first court appearance after killing 93 people in twin attacks."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8655175/Oslo-explosion-live-coverage.html

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Police now say they may have over-estimated the number killed on the island (Fox News reporting) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See the new section below for what police say now:
New body count [July 25] @ [at] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#New_death_total_.5BJuly_25.5D
Police press conference, reported now: Utøya — at least 68. Oslo — at least 8.

Should focus include the innocent that died? It is good that some are noted. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik's praise of Bin Laden's organization abilities is noteworthy, speaks of the man's ultimate goals

User Mustihussain,

I'm not certain why you feel that it is not noteworthy that Breivik praises a certain Muslim in his manifesto. The fact that he praises Bin Laden's organizational abilities seems to me to not only be exceptional, especially in an anti-Muslim manifesto, but also quite noteworthy. To me it gives insight to a reader as to Breivik's highest ideals of organization, especially when he values something so much that he is momentarily able to set aside his anti-Muslim bias long enough to praise someone whom he sees as an enemy.

You've now reverted this three times, which according to WP: Policy amounts to edit warring. As I requested earlier, please do not delete it a fourth time without first requesting third party views and suggestions. Comments anyone else? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

he does not praise osama, sorry. this is original research.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please wait for Third party comments. On page 1463 of the manifesto Brievek wrote: "If Muhammad was alive today Usama Bin Laden would have been his second in command.... superior structural and methodical adaptation...". How is this original research?? Scott P. (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not strictly original research but a primary source. Most of the stuff sourced to the manifesto needs to go. We should be using secondary sources to interpret it. There are also no page numbers so it would be difficult to look for it in a 1500-page work. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's nearly a verbatim quote. No interpretation necessary. Check the PDF page number of the copy listed in the "External Links" section. Scott P. (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, since the wording doesn't accurately represent the meaning of the text in the source. Sorry if you feel this is splitting hairs, but it rather changes the overall impression of the article. --Benjamil 18:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamil (talk • contribs)

Primary sources shouldn't be used for this stuff. It leads to claims of cherry-picking and such. If it's really noteworthy, a secondary source would have picked up on it. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I heard it on an NPR broadcast this morning, with I think it was Terry Gross. I'll have to look for a transcript of it now I guess. How exactly would you say this reference is inaccurately representing the intent of the author? I don't understand. Scott P. (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire section reads: "If Muhammad was alive today, Usama Bin Laden would have been his second in command. They follow the teachings of the Quran and as such have more than 100 million sympathisers and supporters. Superior structural and methodical adaptation, True Islam appeals to many Muslims. Al-Qaeda’s relatively unknown but most important achievement is the fact that they have made moderate Islamist organisations more approachable by expanded the radical political axis. This legitimised several Islamist groups and therefore changed the very definition of “extreme Islam”. Several Islamic political entities that used to seem radical now seem moderate. As such, they work in tandem with the so called moderate Muslim organisations. They all have the same goal, conquering everything non-Muslim."

Calling this praise is pushing the definition, as far as I'm concerned, not the least with the last sentence taken into account. Implying that he praises bin Laden implies that his worldview is not coherent, which it as far as most sources have concluded is. This has consequences for the interpretation of psychological profile. I agree with Christopher Connor. --Benjamil 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Patton praised some of Rommel's abilities, but not the Nazi worldview. I have written that Breivik did not agree with Bin Laden's world-view. What is the difference? Scott P. (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Christopher Conner and Benjaml. This is hardly a praise directed at Bin Laden (if a praise at all it is directed at extremist Islam, not Bin Laden as a person) and even further from an influence. --Painocus (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

i agree with christopher, benjamil and painocus. not only is a primary source used but also a sentence is given massive undue weight. in addition, the quote is original research as breivik does not praise osama. as shown by benjamil, calling what breivik wrote a "praise" is simply wrong. i suggest that christopher, benjamil and painocus remove the paragraph.-- mustihussain (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed it for now. --Painocus (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's one step forward but we should be looking to replace the manifesto with secondary sources. There's even two separate links to it in the references, each with multiple cites. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to advocate including the paragraph again. At least not for now. There has been more than enough quarrel about that. However, I have comments:

First of all: It is entirely possible to praise your adversary as a formidable enemy. It is an admiration/acknowledgement of his/her capabilities, not his/her goals.

The following is an excerpt fromTalk:Anders Behring Breivik#Religious section:

His admiration of Osama Bin Laden's organizational talents, when seen in context with his attempt to use Christianity as an ideological lever to unite Europe, and his attempts to inspire European "cultural warriors" to "embrace martyrdom" in order to be "assured the reward of imperishable glory in the Kingdom of Heavens" reveals his envy of the jihadists possibilities to indoctrinate human beings to the point where they are little more than human warheads, and his attempt to reproduce it.

Seen in this light, I think that the quote introduced by Painocus is perhaps one of the most important/revealing quotes in the whole "manifesto". --Teiresia (T) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that he praised Al-Quada as capable organisation.--Gilisa (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This WP:OR and has been met rightfully with strong opposition by the community. --hydrox (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing info: hunting and EDL

Strangely no mention here of his stated love of hunting, or of his dealings with and admiration of the English Defence League. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260736/Killer-was-adviser-to-EDL-on-Islamic-hatred What's the reason for leaving this out? 194.83.11.220 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The EDL didn't come up, yet. Include it, if you deem it important.

As to his hunting hobby, as well as his love of military strategic simulation games, this was edited out at some point. I don't quite recall whether it was because it was deemed irrelevant, or because the only source for this was his manifesto, the citation of which was deemed Original Research, not to be included. I think it was the latter. If you have relevant press sources and deem it important: Include it! --Teiresia (T) 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree, both should be included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.114.225 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The EDL was mentioned above, should have gone in before. I took your source and those before and added two sentences just now. Wnt (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik's description of Al Queda as only one of two successful militant organizations not an expression of admiration?

The following discussion 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.

---

User Johanneswilm,

Why do you disagree with NBC reporter Joshua Norman's assessment of Breivik's positive remarks about Al Queda tactics as misleading or inaccurate, to the extent that Norman's assessments must be edited out of Wikipedia? Scott P. (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to include it, but then do it in a manner that is appropriate in size in relation to all the other groups and individuals he claims to admire. This one is the odd one out, and just listing this one gives a wrong picture of his overall politics. Please discuss this further in the section of his politics above before readding it. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I now see above that you did not have the majority in your favor already once on this issue. Don't start new discussion sections for items that are being discussed already. As you clearly see above, your statement gives massively undue weight to the section on Bin Laden and you don't have consensus on including it. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus above was that a secondary source was needed. I provided that. Now you have to argue that you disagree with the reporting style of a CBS reporter. Exactly why and how do you feel that by noting CBS's reporting on Breivik's admiration of Al Queda that the article becomes skewed (as apparently you now believe that CBS is a skewed reporting source? Scott P. (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still putting undue weight on the issue, also in relation to the CBS article. Please discuss above. --Johanneswilm (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Johanneswilm, you are repeating yourself and not answering my questions. Exactly how does reporting on the CBS article "skew" the article? If you could please answer this, perhaps I could better understand you. Any comments from others would be most welcome here too? Scott P. (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Johanneswilm,

The point in the discussion you reference was, that Scott P. quoted directly from the "manifesto", which was deemed WP:OR. Now that a relevant media organization, the CBS, has also reported on this, it is no longer WP:OR. Thus it is no longer barred from inclusion.

Please also read the discussion under Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Breivik's praise of Bin Laden's organization abilities is noteworthy, speaks of the man's ultimate goals and Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Religious section on why it is deemed of importance to his political views andagenda.

If – after doing so – you still see a problem with this, please come back here, and explain it. --Teiresia (T) 22:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That was part of the argument above. The other part was "massive undue weight" on this point. That point still stands. Please discuss above.--Johanneswilm (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

why is this being discussed here? this is totally disingenuous. please discuss this issue above.-- mustihussain (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Because above there is no discussion of how or why this material skews the article. Since we are asking you this question here, could you please answer it here? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please specify what you mean by "above". Can't you give a link, or even a paragraph name? --Teiresia (T) 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what he means by "above" is in the section above where they disagree with the CBS reporter, and say that no, Breivik didn't think there was anything about Al Queda worthy of positive regard by Breivik. If they can find any press sources for their view, then, by all means they may have a point, but to say that their opinions outweigh a valid press source, that is POV, no? Scott P. (talk) 23:00, 24 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.

Someone removed the above dialogue, this is a violation of WP:Policy. Please do not vandalize talk pages. Please do not remove the dialogues of others without their permission. Scott P. (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.27.123.88, 25 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In addition to the external youtube link to his video you should also provide this link to the video he produced, as it does not need a verified YouTube account to watch, and hence is more accessible to most people.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89a_1311444384

86.27.123.88 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not the place for psycopaths to publish their insanity. The article could mention that he posted original videos on the web, in an attempt to justify his illness to himself, and to the world, and to get attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.29.132 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Not in accord with WP:EL policy.  Chzz  ►  01:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I did this - I think the LiveLeak link is better as the IP says, and LiveLeak is a publisher that certifies it's actually by this person. It's not a huge deal either way, but technically this is better, and the purpose of semi-protection isn't to ignore IPs when they're right. Wnt (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but won't edit-war. I don't like the accusation that I was ignoring anyone; quite the reverse - I was processing the request, and in good faith, my conclusion was that it failed the external linking policy.  Chzz  ►  02:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is censorship

This is censorship. Plain and simple. You have no arguments left, so you resort to muzzling dissent. - „Par ordre du mufti“, one might say.

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Please specify what discussion page this is. I sincerely, honestly, do not know.

• A single secondary source doesn't establish verifiability for controversial claims

Hello? We have the primary source. So it can not be deemed controversial, that the information is correct. Page 1463, 1472 in the PDF-Version.

What you (opponents of inclusion of this information) wanted was: Proof, that Scott P. wasn't putting undue weight on it by "cherry-picking and such". Your argument was: "If it's really noteworthy, a secondary source would have picked up on it.".

Now that such a secondary source exists, you are not willing to accept this, without giving any explanation with regards to content. In my analysis this renders your previous argumentation an artificial argument, pure rhetoric, solely designed to avert the inclusion of said information, by any means necessary.

• We clearly make a difference between opinion pieces and reporting, even within the same reliable source. The difference can be subjected to consensus, but it is not automatic inclusion or exclusion.

How does Joshua Normans piece qualify as an OpEd?

How would it being an OpEd influence its impact on the noteworthyness of said information?

• Consensus is clear that this - admiration for al-qaeda - is a controversial claim, needing multiple sources of verification, and furthermore due weight consideration in terms of the article's subject entire political context and views.

How is this controversial? Who (relevant source!) ever claimed that ABB had no admiration for the AQ/OBL?

• The manifesto is a primary source, we should not quote from it nakedly, period - we should only report from it what reliable sources in verifiable conditions report

There is no absolute ban on primary sources in WP. Let me quote regulations:

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. (...) Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (...) Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

In the edit in question, Scott P. uses the primary source only by quoting from it, verbatim. This is an acceptable use of primary sources, as per the regulations. The only interpretation of the source is derived from the secondary source:

"Oddly, despite his evident hatred of Muslims and Arabs, "Berwick" professes admiration for al Qaeda"(...)

Since no other secondary source known to us offers a conflicting interpretation, it can hardly be classified as controversial. Your own feelings and opinions as WikiPedia editors about this, should, as you asserted yourself, not matter on the subject.

Furthermore, the secondary sources establishes the topic's notability.

So as for now, I can see no reason against the inclusion.

If equally hard standards were to be applied to other claims made in the article, it would contain almost nothing.

This is the last I will write about this. I have already wasted way too much time and effort on this. Ironically, probably even enough as to write up a secondary source of my own, and to place it with a relevant German publication.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottperry (talk • contribs)

I'd only like to ask one favour: Please try to take a step backwards, out of the trenches, and to take a look the matter from a fresh perspective. I will try to do the same. --Teiresia (T) 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As there is no response, and there are two solid refs that support the inclusion of the Al Qaeda cite (the manifesto itself and the CBS news article) and two editors who support it, and no refs or logic given to show how the Al Qaeda cite might be skewed, please submit this question as an RFC before arbitrarily inserting an unsupported personal opion into the editing of this article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, first of all, it would be much more pleasant to reply to your talk page comment if you formatted the text so that it would be concise and straight-to-point, instead of long and short story -like. I have found the point that you are referring to in his manifesto. It is page 1473, where al-Qaeda is listed under "Successful militant organizations - Case studies" My quick reading is that this was removed from the article, because it is not notable. He lists six other militant organizations, two of which he considers "successful" alongside al-Qaeda. Generally he has extremely hostile views on Islam in the manifesto, but he praises al-Qaeda's military organization as an example to his own organization, the "cultural conservative" "Knights Templar" order. --hydrox (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to imply anything else. This is also my analysis.--Teiresia (T) 04:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian?

The copy of the manifesto I read implies that he considers himself an agnostic. One cannot be both Christian and agnostic--JegSnakkerSant (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Q: Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachingsof the Bible?

A: My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion.At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed :in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian.

That's from his manifesto. Could you please provide a page number from the document for your claim that he is an agnostic?

Lklusener (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, page 1399, "Personal facts", says "Religious: I went from moderately to agnostic to moderately religious" --hydrox (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We already tried to discuss this in Christian, or cultural christian.

Irrespective of his own religiousness, it is important to understand that ABB actually beleives that there is such a thing as an agnotic christian, and even an atheist christian, as long as they are so-called "cultural christians. --Teiresia (T) 03:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, these perplexing terms are used throughout the book. He appears to view anyone with European enculturation as "Christian", and makes notes of many core European cultural values as being based on Christianity. True or not, and I must say such is not even an especially novel interpretation, he also describes praying to God on page 1460: "I prayed for the first time in a very long time today. I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail. He must ensure that I succeed with my mission and as such; contribute to inspire thousands of other revolutionary conservatives/nationalists; anti-Communists and anti-Islamists throughout the European world." --hydrox (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He explained to God?!? Wow! I hadn't seen that bit yet. – What grandiose hubris! --Teiresia (T) 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he is not a native English speaker and I am sure he did not pray in English saying: "Dear God, now let me explain you something..." --89.204.153.249 (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've discussed above, the description as "100% Christian" in the context he describes (strong "cultural Christianity") is not the same as "Christian fundamentalism", and I believe that descriptor, found in the header, to be inaccurate. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How can we avoid discussing his religious motivations in the article when he clearly describes them in his manifesto, as in the following passage?

(pg. 1390): "The Bible tells us that we are now all good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Whether we want to face up to it or not, we are all living in a war zone as a result of the curse of Adam and Eve that is still in full operation on this earth. Anyone of us at anytime can come under human or demonic attack. The daily news will prove that to you without any shadow of a doubt. Each Christian must now make their own personal decision on all of this. You can either choose to learn how to rise up in the power of your Lord and Saviour and learn how to become a true warrior in the Lord, or you can continue to keepyour head in the sand and oppressor after oppressor keep beating you down. The choice is yours." Lklusener (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Manifesto as a source and other notes on sourcing.

This issue is being discussed on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard

I am refraining from much editing waiting to the time all the cruftedits and SPAs leave so we can make a GA article, but some notes I felt need to go in here.

1) The manifesto should not be used as a source, as it is a primary source, hence of lesser encyclopedic quality. Most if not all the information in the article can be found in secondary and tertiary sources, use those instead. In wikipedia we prefer secondary and tertiary reliable sources over primary sources whenever possible.

2) Do not use other primary sources if secondary sources are easily available. For example, why use an unreliable primary source (birthday.no) to source the birth date when you can do it with a secondary reliable source [19].

3) Any and all information sourced solely to the manifesto is subject to immediate removal as OR. To keep this from happening source the material with secondary sources.

4) WP:ABOUTSELF clearly applies UNDER the other verifiability criteria, not standing alone as policy, and WP:V is UNDER WP:RS. Furthermore, it refers SOLELY to sourcing material, not inclusion of material as per WP:OR - well sourced material can still be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. So WP:ABOUTSELF is not blanket permission to include primary source material, just permission to do so under very specific circumstances for very specific purposes. The use of the manifesto so far meets none of those hurdles - and in particular, the availability of all of this material in secondary sources makes the use of the primary source obsolete.

5) WP:OR is when you include anything that no secondary source is saying. WP:SYNTH is when you take two sources and merge them together to create a novel idea neither of those sources expressed. Neither OR nor SYNTH can be verified, even if true, and hence remain out. If you use the manifesto, you are making a truthful statement, but not a verifiable one. If you verify the statement, you can only do so with a secondary or tertiary sources, which moots the need for the primary source. There is really no need to use the manifesto to include relevant text in the article as there are literally thousands of sources that have dissected it already.

6) This is a BLP. That means we should be extra careful, and unsourced/badly sourced material, specially controversial material, should be removed.

--Cerejota (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Immediate responnse to point 1: This is not supported by the relevant policy. Instead, it says that primary sources CAN be used as long as they are not mispresented or interpreted, and when they are understanable by non-experts. I find this especially useful currently, when many news sources are misinteprepting the manifesto (eg. claiming that Breivik wrote something that was actually written in a blog post he quoted.) In future, there will hopefully be a journalistic and academic analysis of his texts and they should probably used in most cases, but as of now your point 1 and 3 are total mispresentation of the policy. --hydrox (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Hydrox. Not only is the manifesto valid as a source for what the subject claims, but OR is when editors combine sources and derive a NEW conclusion (no matter how minor), it's nothing to do with accurately reflecting one or more sources whether primary or secondary or even self published. And WP:BLP specifically permits self published sources by the subject of the BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teapeat (talk • contribs) 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Cerejota, for enlightening me. :) --Teiresia (T) 04:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Such sources are specifically mentioned as allowed not only from WP:PRIMARY as Hydroxy mentions, but is specifically covered in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves as well. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am currently restoring the cites to the manifesto, as a cite is better than no cite. Please have a proper discussion about this before undoing my edits. Also, User:Cerejota you can not just remove a heap of cites and give "per talk" as edit summary, when the only viewpoint on the talk page is one you just inserted there! --hydrox (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can do that in a BLP. There must be consensus for content to be included and it must comply with policy. Good faith objections have been raised and are being discussed. The content should stay out until the issues are resolved. The issue of editors sampling a primary source and publishing their selected samples in Wikipedia is being discussed at the BLP noticeboard. My view is that this kind of sampling is inherently a form of analysis and therefore OR. It's likely that the consensus will be to exclude this material. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point some information can only be derived from his manifesto, because there does not yet exist relialbe seconary sources to make those claims. I just went through all the allegations that are referenced to his manifesto, and none of them seem to be against the policy. We have already removed multiple "cherrypicked" quotations from his manifesto in this article. In my mind, your language seems to demonstrate general distrust of the editor community, assuming all citations to the text are cherry picked. --hydrox (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What information? Every single bit of information that has been sourced to the manifesto, can actually be sourced to a secondary source, ofeten they use the manifesto true, but avoids the pitfalls of OR and SYNTH that using a primary source create. The fact we can use primary sources, doesn't mean we have to use them - in particular when a secondary source of high quality is available. What Teapot's argument amounts to is putting WP:ABOUTSELF as more important to the project than the rest of WP:OR and of WP:V, and of the overriding responsibility and privilege of the encyclopedic mission - he elevates a footnote exception to the heights of The Most Important Policy Ever That If Not Obeyed Means Then End Of The World As We Know It. That wikilawyering, and you know it.

Why is it, for example, that the use of primary sources is generally frowned upon in GA and FA reviews - although not forbidden? Its about the quality of the encyclopedia. Primary sources diminish this quality, because they often engage in OR and skew perspectives towards that of the editors, rather than that of the RS. In a BLP, furthermore, it creates issues of ethics and moral responsibility as widely held in the project regarding BLPs. This is a BLP, no matter how much we hate the guy, is not anything goes. I am surprised you, of all people, are taking the side of the voyeurs and sensationalists on this one. --Cerejota (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Every single bit of information that has been sourced to the manifesto, can actually be sourced to a secondary source" As much as I wish this was true, it is not the case. If you can indeed find suitable sources for these claims, do so and replace them, but do not mass-remove existing references. For example, here, here, here, here, here and here you removed the source from a sourced statement, without replacing it with a new source. I am all for sourcing these primary source statements to secondary sources as soon as those become available, but please don't change them to {{fact}}s before this happens. --hydrox (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolve with an editnotice?

Suggest resolving this for now by inserting the following edit notice:

This requires admin action: here. --hydrox (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth: I second that motion. --Teiresia (T) 05:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the motion as well. JIP | Talk 05:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)