Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

freedom party is not libertarian

the freedom party used to have a small libertarian wing but in the 1990s it rightly split from the main party because the majority of the party held populist anti-immigration views which opposed the liberal/libertarian wing. so it is definitively incorrect to call it a libertarian party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.75.99 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Progress Party (Norway)? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

yes, progress party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.78.108 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Party_(Norway)#Schism_with_libertarians_and_electoral_surge_.281990s.29 as you can read, the progress party is more of a populist+anti-immigration party rather than a libertarian party. so i think the text should be changed to "populist anti-immigration party."

--Greg.loutsenko (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"krones" should be changed to crowns or kronor

The use of the word "krones" for plural Norwegian Krone is not correct in my view. If one wishes to use the English plural form "crowns" would be best as crown is an English word, likewise, if one wishes to use the Norwegian term, then the Norwegian plural (kronor) would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.242.109.124 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Norwegian plural is kroner, not kronor (which is Swedish). JonFlaune (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I'd actually changed it to kroner in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated. I strongly suggest crowns because the forms are so confusing. Norway has two languages, Norwegian Bokmål (where Norway is called Norge), and Norwegian Nynorsk (where Norway is called Noreg).

If I'm not mistaken:

Norwegian Bokmål has krone, plural kroner.

Norwegian Nynorsk has both krone, plural kroner, and krona, plural kronor.

Compare:

Danish krone, plural kroner.

Swedish krona, plural kronor.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but Nynorsk is a minority language (around 10% nationally, mostly used in some western Norwegian regions). The attack happened in South Eastern Norway, and Breivik is from South Eastern Norway, where Bokmål is used by 98% or more. JonFlaune (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "krone" is the correct form in both bokmål and nynorsk: [1], [2], and kroner seems to be at least the common form even in Nynorsk: [3] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that kroner in English is wrong, only that it's better to say and write crowns, because the whole story with krona/króna/krone and their different plurals in different languages is unnecessarily confusing. This is the case irrespective of the status of plural kronor (and singular krona) in Norwegian. Having said that, it seems we agree that plural kronor occurs in Norwegian.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Or we could get around the whole point and just write the abbreviation kr or NOK. It's not like it's a household international currency and doesn't need linking, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Battleground Wikipedia

Has anyone else followed the link from his photographs to his manifesto, anyone read http://www.ff3300.com/wordpress/tag/anders-behring-breivik/

He says "Battlefield Wikipedia - an important tool to market resistance fighters/resistance movements and our world view" --Hemshaw (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't coverage of this restricted to Wikinews?

Why is this even being covered on Wikipedia when it is an unfolding current event? Surely Wikinews would be more appropriate at this stage.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats my opinion, too. Zabia2 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's covered on Wikipedia, because the person was involved in an event that is obviously of more than temporary notability and significance.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is good to develop here in Wikipedia because it is so notable. How many people (including me) don't know about the other Wiki you mention? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles, your argument "good to develop here in Wikipedia because it is so notable" is rubbish, it is an unfolding current event, hasn't even gone to trial, the coverage violates Wikipedia guidelines. You might look at Wikinews, there is a reason this is being covered here more intensively than there. The reasons are two: 1. Wikinews is somewhat independent, doesn't always push the party line of Wikipedia "powers" and 2. getting fewer page views than the 'pedia, it only provides a smaller stage for people pushing points.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Romerat, 1 August 2011

The following statement is incorrect and should therefore be removed: "Despite this, the security service accessed his phone and email but only for 24 hours."

In the interview with VG Jon Fitje states that surveillance of Breivik 24 hours a day would be necessary to reveal his plans. However, this was never done since PST had no reason to suspect him for having such plans.

Source: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10080771

Romerat (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail reference says it was done for 24 hours.[4] This does not actually contradict a statement that he couldn't be surveilled 24 hours a day indefinitely.

The machine translation of the reference you cite talks about not doing 24 hour a day surveillance [5] but I can't really tell whether it says no surveillance at all was done. Are you able to read the original and say it definitely rules out any surveillance at all? Wnt (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not ever rely on machine translations. There are editors on this project who speak or can read almost all languages -- well, collectively that is --, and one of the best way to contact them is on the country-specific project pages, or to contact and active contributor to such a project directly on the user talk page.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail reference is based on the interview in Norwegian with the guy from PST in the newspaper VG. I am a Norwegian native my self, and the original text definitely rules out any surveillance at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romerat (talk • contribs) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Patrick (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from Elcor101, 2 August 2011

Can we please change the current Pamela Gellar paragraph in "Responses from those mentioned", to the following: "Came under extensive fire for not reporting a possible terror attack in Norway and subsequently covering her tracks, according to Richard Coughlan. She also edited a line from a blog post entitled Email from Norway after the Oslo Massacre; the original line from the email which was deleted after the Oslo Massacre is as follows, "We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast".She strongly dismissed any connection between Breivik's manifesto and her writings as "ridiculous", saying that he was "responsible for his actions" and that, "[i]f anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcor101 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A youTube video blog isn't remotely a sufficiently reliable source for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused, I've used sources such as atlasshrugs current blog and a webcached version of the atlasshrugs blog, isn't that suffice to to edit request I made? Elcor101 15:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Elcor101 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Education. Schools attended. "Alma mater"?

According to The Guardian:

Breivik attended Smestad Grammar School, Ris Junior High, Hartvig Nissen High School and Oslo Commerce School.

I think an overhaul would be good here. Terms such as Grammar School and High-School are hardly adequate. It would be preferable that we give Norwegian references and translate the terms ourselves.

Info box:

Alma mater—Oslo Commerce School

I would prefer:

Education—Oslo Commerce School

Oslo Handelsgymnasium, Oslo Commerce School, is a gymnasium, and thus pre-university by definition. I think the term Alma mater is somewhat bombastic.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for format fix! (See history.)

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology 2

"Christian terrorism"

Christian apologists are trolling wikipedia, but this guy wanted to kill "cultural marxists" who were, as he saw it, threatening the purity of European Christendom and European culture in general. His religious beliefs cannot be separated from his hatred of Islam nor his zionism. His manifesto mentions 'Christ' 500 times in the first 200 pages of his 1,518 page manifesto. He voted for only the most conservative clergy in church elections. He said he considered himself "100% Christian." He was a member of "The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon", which was allegedly founded in London in April 2002, as a "re-founding" of the millenia-old Christian crusader organisation. His video celebrated crusaders as heroes. Just because you disagree with his beliefs does not mean he's not a Christian. Just because he's crazy, doesn't dismiss the reality that he is a Christian. And his Christianity isn't peripheral. It's essential to understand what his motives were. It doesn't matter what you think Jesus "actually" taught. Also, just because he was fine with agnostics who didn't get in the way, doesn't make this any less of an example of Christian terrorism. "The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination, according to Norwegian and American officials familiar with the investigation." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24oslo.html?_r=3&pagewanted=3&partner=rss&emc=rss Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is rubbish.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Christians are the majority here, therefore I fear they will be successful in suppressing the facts you are pointing to. --89.204.153.249 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive argument, congratulations, the facts being suppressed are quite different.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a passage where he's the clearest in expressing his religious motivations:

(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."

I realize that his religious beliefs will be an object of great contention among those who wish to diminish or distort them, but we must strive to present a comprehensive and objective view that takes into account passages like the one I've quoted above and his emphasis on cultural Christianity. Lklusener (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No you are bias in your reasoning. Read these passages instead which outlines Ander's view on Christianity:

[p. 1309] "A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians? If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."

[p.1346] "If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. [...] I am pursuing religion for this very reason and everyone else should as well, providing it will give you a mental boost. There is no shame in praying minutes before your death."

"Pragmaticists or rationalistic minded individuals who are hardened atheists should consider the following; it may be pragmatic to believe in an afterlife as it will make you a more efficient soldier. The less fearfull a person is the more effective he will be as a warrior."

[p.1363] "The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order."

[p.1405] "Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

EnEvighet7 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

" By propagating and defending Christendom we simply mean that we want to halt the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist attacks and systematic deconstruction on our Christian cultures and the Church itself and to reverse the de-Christianisation of Europe." (Manifesto, p.1352)

" Although the PCCTS, Knights Templar is a pan-European indigenous rights movement we give all Europeans, regardless of skin colour, the opportunity to become a Justiciar Knight as long as the individual is either a Christian, Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist. " (Manifesto, p. 820)66.188.228.180 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On his Facebook page, Breivik described himself as both conservative and Christian. In a 2009 online post, he wrote: "Today's Protestant church is a joke. 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." http://www.courant.com/mobile/hc-campbell-terrorist-0726-20110726,0,6453552.column 66.188.228.180 (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the shooter also claim not to have a personal relationship with Christ? --Protostan (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So what? He also said he was a Christian. To contend otherwise because of your own personal standard of what it means to be a Christian would be personal bias and OR. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So he's a Christian. What, does one guy make all Christians evil murderers or terrorists? People are fighting so hard to make the case that just because fundamentalist Islam is violent that doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists and this type of argument would undermine that. Breivik may well be Christian and that can go in the article but there is no need to give too much weight to the fact. After all, that's not the reason he did this terrible thing and there haven't been other incidents like it. MultK (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no definitive answer as to whether Breivik was a "Christian" or not, while he was certainly not a practicing Christian, so the logical solution seems to omit this reference from the infobox and only include it in the discussion. Additionally, several other terrorists with other motivations, notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Nidal Malik Hasan , who called himself "Soldier of Allah" and regularly attended Dar al-Hijrah mosque (the mosque frequented by the 9/11 hijackers), do not have "Islam" in their top biography summary or infobox. Why is the highly controversial "Christian" label in the infobox absolutely necessary for Breivik and yet unnecessary for other terrorists of well-known religious communities? Recommend remove religion from infobox and leave in discussion. --Nikeshoccr (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for putting this in the wrong section: The blog of A.J. Deus, a researcher in religious terrorism, contains detailed information about Breivik's religiousity: http://greatleapfraud.wordpress.com/. The author argues the extensive use of biblical justifications in the 2083 compendium and an expressed intent to submit Europe to a reformed Catholic Church with the pope as the supreme Knights Templar. Breivik calls for the annexation of the Palestinian territories by Israel. It is understandable that Christian leaders try to find any argument to undo Breivik's Christianity. However, that does not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni.R.Hume (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian, or cultural christian

First things first - the cached version of Breivik's Facebook profile does NOT include the much-ballyhooed description of himself as "Christian". (BTW: Why is the Facebook profile not discussed more prominently in the article? WP policy DOES permit drawing direct and unambiguous conclusions from primary documents, e.g. "the FB page does NOT mention any religion".

The authenticity of a later version of the FB page is subject to considerable doubt. This is reinforced by the politically convenient but bizarre characterization of the crime as "fundamentalist Christian" by Norwegian police. The claim is bizarre because there are essentially no "fundamentalist Christians" in Norway, and Breivik certainly never was a "fundamentalist Christian in any sense. This term appears to have been used to propitiate leftist groups in the U.S.

People who has searched through his "manifest" has found this quote: "I do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. I do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform." This, supposedly, at page 1306. I haven't checked, and I'm not sure I ever want to touch that thing, but if this makes him a Cultural Christian and not a christian, would what he says about himself be of importance? Greswik (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to claim he's not a "true Christian"? Yeah, that's not going to fly on here. He's a Christian. It's truly pathetic how many right wing nutjobs have been trying to change the Christian aspect since they found out he wasn't a Muslim. 124.169.71.201 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

So what? Greswik has a point here, anyway doesn't s/he? --Teiresia (T) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this is of importance. How would you word it? --Teiresia (T) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking about changing the infobox. But let's see what people think. This obviously is touchy. Greswik (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is a christian. Period. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He clearly is a Christian, but why should this clearly stated religious viewpoint be excluded, because he would no longer fit into the neat little box of fundamentalist nut-job? The broader a picture we have of the man's actions and beliefs the more we can learn about him... how his stated beliefs diverge so widely from his actions so clearly born of religious fundamentalism are in my opinion as important in understanding this man's pathology as anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.147.86 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian, but please refrain from the personal attacks, no need to call all Christian fundamentalists "nut-jobs", keep it civil buddy. Thanks DerekMD (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One person could read that manifesto and say he is a Christian and was motivated by a Christian ideology, another could say "he doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus" and therefore not a Christian. That is why wikipedia prefers secondary sources like the New York Times article, to primary sources, which are open to interpretation by different editors. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see how weird it really is, consider: "A great majority of people tend to seek out a divine power when they are facing an extreme threat. It is therefore essential and it is strongly recommended that all Justiciar Knights (even our Christian agnostic and Christian atheist brothers and sisters) attend Church before the operation to seek absolution and to request that God infuses our our soul and our armour of steel with the armour of spiritual protection and confidence." (p. 1345) I don't get the difference between a Christian atheist and a Muslim atheist... (we need an ASCII emoticon for pointedly tapping your head) Wnt (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course some people are going to argue this guy is a "cultural Christian", not a "real Christian". Perhaps there is some merit to this idea, perhaps not. The point is that we are not a discussion forum, we just collect information and arrange it based on its relative notability (WP:DUE). So the thing you want to do is, wait for somebody quotable to say he is a "cultural Christian", then cite this person here, with proper attribution. Problem solved. Don't try to start debates here about whether he "is" or "is not" a "cultural Christian", just report who said what. Did I mention this isn't a discussion forum? Also, we don't do soul-searching on the private religious convictions of Muslim terrorists. They blow up people in the name of Islam, hence they are Muslim terrorist. Exactly the same applies to Christian terrorism. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He is obviously a Christian. In Norway the very definition of Christian is "member of the Church of Norway". Most people officially considered Christians in Norway do not have a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God", because Norway is not the US. He states that he "believe[s] in Christianity" and that clearly makes him a Christian. JonFlaune (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

yes of course. It still may be reasonable to inquire about further details of his Christianity, like it may make sense to point out that most Muslim terrorists are influenced by Wahhabism. But the point is that such considerations aren't the job of Wikipedians. We only report on them as they get published. It is completely undisputed that "he is a Christian". The question was, "should we embark on editorializing on the question of what kind of Christian he is". The answer to that is no, stick to WP:RS. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a quote from his manifesto:

"As a non-religious person, but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture, I have warned against naive Christian compassion[1] related to Muslim immigration, as well as a disturbing tendency among too many Christian organisations to ally themselves with Muslims, for "religious values" and against Israel. But frankly, the most useful allies Muslims have in the West more often than not tend to be found among the non-religious crowd."

Clearly, not a Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.61.90 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian as Christian can be. --89.204.153.215 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit written by Fjordman. Was there clarity on whether Fjordman was Breivik or not? h3st (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another quote that may help add context:

"If you want to fight for the cross and die under the “cross of the martyrs” it’s required that you are a practising Christian, a Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist (cultural Christian). The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit. Even Odinists can fight with us or by our side as brothers in this fight as long as they accept the founding principles of PCCTS, Knights Templar and agree to fight under the cross of the martyrs. The essence of our struggle is to defeat the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe before the we are completely demographically overwhelmed by Muslims. I have studied Norse Mythology and have a lot of respect for the Odinist traditions. I consider myself to be a Christian, but Odinism is still and will always be an important part of my culture and identity."

It seems that he considers himself to be Christian, but whether that be "Cultural Christian" or religious Christian, remains unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.61.90 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this should help clear up a lot:

"As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons. After all, Christianity is the ONLY cultural platform that can unite all Europeans, which will be needed in the coming period during the third expulsion of the Muslims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.61.90 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A cultural Christian is nonetheless a Christian. --89.204.153.249 (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was Dawkins or Hitchens who described themselves as Christian in a cultural sense... would you count them as truly Christian? They clearly wouldn't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.103.211 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens is a drunken snout in a trough. If it was him who gave that description, he wouldn't say it now.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That was Richard Dawkins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwoMcN-YyVM

A suggestion I would have is to read Religion in Norway. Only 32% of Norwegians respond that ""they believe there is a God". Yet 84.2% of Norwegians are nominally a member of some church. As of 1995, only 5% of Norwegians regularly attended church. (I would guess/assume that it's lower now, but the exact number is irrelevant to the point.) That's completely different from the US where 60%-75% (depending on whose poll you use) self-identifies as Christian and 42% attend church. In the US, most people who call themselves Christians are "practicing" Christians in that they attend church. In Norway, only 40% of people who are nominally church members even believe in God and only a tiny percentage attend Church. So if the case is that this guy was not a "practicing" Christian, then appropriate terminology might be "non-practicing Christian" or "nominally Christian". --B (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that this is not a forum. Per policy, talk-page edits not directly related to article content may be deleted, and our own speculations as to ABB's beliefs are utterly irrelevant - we base articles on reliable sources, not on our own theological/psychological analysis. If you wish to engage in that, do it eleswhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's completely inappropriate AndyTheGrump; the people in this thread are discussing what to put in the article about his religion.Teapeat (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On page 1398 of the Manifesto he explicitly identifies himself as a Christian. My concern is that people are cherry-picking secondary sources that claim that he's only a cultural Christian, whereas the vast majority of sources don't seem to do that, and tend to refer to him as fundamentalist christian. That's also supported by the manifesto; apparently he also says he left the Church of Norway because it wasn't religiously hard-core enough for him (or words to that effect).Teapeat (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He explicitly identifies himself as a cultural Christian on page 1362. Page 1362-1363:

"As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons. After all, Christianity is the ONLY cultural platform that can unite all Europeans, which will be needed in the coming period during the third expulsion of the Muslims ... The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order."

Blueroom2 (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He considers himself a cultural Christian, because he's influenced by the culture, but that doesn't mean he's not a Christian as well, and he indicates that he was at one point agnostic, but he isn't any more, and he specifically identifies as Christian. If he was just a cultural Christian then he would be agnostic or a follower of another faith.Teapeat (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As people have said, we should be relying on reliable sources. Amongst the many good reasons for this is because people were earlier apparently quoting stuff he evidentally got directly from Fjordman (who I think it's now clear is someone else) as ABB's own words. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The question of a cultural Christian vs. a real Christian can probably be answered with the blog of A.J. Deus, a researcher in religious terrorism: http://greatleapfraud.wordpress.com. While he might be a "cultural" Christian (whatever that is), much of his intellectual framework is based on the Old and New Testament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni.R.Hume (talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For some reason a few people consider it a "controversial edit" when I included Breivik's self description of cultural christian.

If they have a good reason for this I'd love to hear it otherwise I'm bringing the quote back. --Protostan (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that the source you cite for Breivik being a 'cultural Christian' [6], merely asserts that some commentators have tried to label him as such, based no doubt on the same cherry-picking that has plagued this talk page, I'd strongly recommend you don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The religion field in the infobox is for listing a person's religion. It is not for cherry-picking quotes, no matter how interesting, well-sourced and/or relevant you feel that they are. Prolog (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I could claim that the quote used to justify his being called a Christian is obviously cherry picked.

As for my souce they weren't lying. In his manifesto Breivik writes "As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protostan (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources report that he is a member of the Church of Norway. There is nothing in Breivik's text or elsewhere that would put this in doubt. Therefore, we can include this information without any qualification or inline attribution.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I know of no evidence that the shooter formally broke with the church even in his own mind. This is why I describe him both as a member of the state church and cultural christian. --Protostan (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 'cultural Christian' isn't a religion at all, as far as I can see. The fact is though that you misused the source to assert something that it actually only referred to as the opinion of some conservative commentators.

On a more general point, think there is a very good case for not having a 'religion' field in an infobox in cases like this, where it is better dealt with in the article body. If people insist on having one, it should at least reflect the weight of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to remove the religion part of this info box altogether I'd be ok with that. --Protostan (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We may discuss omitting the infobox field in all infoboxes on extremists, but we cannot make an exception for this case only.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it's very clear how to classify a persons religion. Other times it is not. Breivik's religion is not easy to classify. --Protostan (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The value for the "Religion" field in the infobox is currently "Christianity (self-asserted, but disputed)". First of all, I'd like to remind everybody that simply putting a person's religion in the infobox does not imply a direct causation between their religion and any other things the individual might be known for (for that discussion, which is a different issue, see the section above). Now, regarding the "Self-asserted, but disputed" sidenote... it's nonsense. If somebody self identifies as being a member of a particular religion, then that religion's name -- and nothing else -- should go in the "Religion" field of the infobox. Period. If there happens to be somebody else (or a number of others) who disagrees with the subject's self-identification (i.e. "he not a 'true' xyz...") then that should go into the article (not the religion field) if it is noteworthy. For instance, there are many people -- particularly moderate Muslims -- who would dispute whether Osama bin Laden is a "true" Muslim given all of the violence that he perpetrated. But his infobox does not mention that -- instead, it simply says what sect of Islam he identifies with. --Shadowlink1014 (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"NeoConservative Extremist"

You are all wrong. This person is a new kind of extremist. He is neither left, nor right, nor is he religious. He is a Neocon Extremist. I'm going to make a change as original content. The Oslo killer's core ideologies regarding Islam, Muslims and multiculturalism clearly have neocon origins:

1) "Moderate" Islam is a fiction 2) Muslims are inherently violent 3) "Jihad" refers to the violent struggle to destroy non-Muslim societies and bring them forcibly into the Islamic world 4) The radical left and its Islamist allies intend to erode western values and disarm western nations in a time of terror 5) The Muslim immigration invasion is a threat to Western Democracies which will lead to Sharia Law and eventually dhimmitude 6) The mainstream media is dominated by liberals and lefties 7) Banning the Burka and Niqab and other forms of overt Islam is not racist or a limit on personal freedoms. 8 ) Islamic fundamentalism is the primary source of terrorism 9) Lefty and Liberal cultural self loathing is a threat to Western values

As a result he concluded that he and fellow defenders of Western Culture must act quickly and decisively to defend the west against the cultural genocide threat posed by Muslim infiltration of our society.

He is clearly a neocon extremist Fiolou (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, NeoCons are right wing (what do you think the 'Con' part stands for?), and secondly, that is pure WP:OR. Articles are based on WP:RS, not on the opinions of random contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. NeoConservative extremist more accurately describe this person. His ideology is not clearly even right wing.Fiolou (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Without sourcing it's still original research/your opinion Jarkeld (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Muslims can have right wing ideologies. Is it possible that a right wing Muslim could share Breivik's ideology? So the right wing extremist is about as accurate as religious extremist and explains many of the problems wikipedia has categorizing this person. You are dealing with something different. He has more in common with Mark Anthony Stroman than any right wing extremist. Fiolou (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone can post some evidence indicating Breivik's motivation was based on right wing ideology generally and not neocon ideology specifically then you night have a case. If right wing describes his ideology accurately enough than what is the difference between right wing and neoconservative? I see neoconservative as a specific type of right wing ideology which is the exclusive ideology expressed in Breivik's manifest. Fiolou (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for debate. Article content is based on what reliable sources say, not on the opinions of contributors. Unless you can find sources that describe Breivik as a 'NeoCon', we won't use the word here. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And besides the term neocon is actually for neo conservative so a neocon would be right winger by definitation anyway. Also you have it backwards it is not up to other users to prove that your unsourced assertion is wrong but for you to find sources that prove that it is right. Since Rift wing is the only thing that is sourced we go with that.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, semi-literate and biased IP contributor for something, and to AndyTheGrump for repeating media spin. Reasons for purposeful omissions of certain details in most mass-media articles on Breivik's ideology are transparently clear. Propagandist reportage doesn't require that everybody suspend their faculties of reason. By the time of both posts above, ample "reliable sources" were already supporting Fiolou's point. If you haven't seen any of those, why do either of you feel qualified to comment at all? This source seems to satisfy WP:RS. If not, why not?Borgmcklorg (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA I suggest you redact that immediately. Furthermore, I see no reason to see the source you provide as anything more than the opinion of its author. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you meant redact and not retract? "Furthermore, I see no reason to see the source you provide as anything more than the opinion of its author.": this applies to every link to a supposed reliable source on the ideology in this article. You chose your own unfortunate and threatening username, not me.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...and it's author is Kerry Bolton, no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know Kerry Bolton or his writings from a bar of soap, and won't bother looking up the link right now. Only posted the link to his post because it was the first reasonable argument to come up for the search-terms I entered. What, is he a prime villain of some kind? You are using a bad argument here (dislike author, so will dump on it without reading it or thinking about it)? Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no information about my views of the author in the sentence. The sentence is a question not an argument. The reliable sources noticeboard is for making arguments about sources. The article is an opinion piece so it would only be reliable for the author's opinions. Is there any evidence that anyone cares about his opinions so that an encyclopedia should regard them as notable ? I doubt it. And yes I do think that criteria should be rigorously applied to all opinion pieces. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Was going purely off the list of qualifications, they satisfy WP:RS, even if you don't like that. "No indication of my views" when you expect the name to automatically disparage the link? Try to be a little straightforward.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A 'list of qualifications' satisfies precisely nothing. (And look up 'redact' in a dictionary). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to violate wikipedia rules and I respect AndyTheGrumps authority regarding rules, since I am a newbie here. Thank you for correcting me BTW. I predict that by the time this goes to court, the phrase "neoconservative extremist" will be used by a recognized authority to describe Breivik. I'm willing to wait. I see no reason to push this until then. Fiolou (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Islamophobia"

I disagree with the use of the term islamopbobia because it is biased. It suggests that if your fear Islam you have a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. So basically it says islamophobes and critics of islam have a mental disorder. Pass a Method talk 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! The term has no place in Wikipedia. Would Neville Chamberlain say Churchill had 'Nazi-phobia'? 'Islamophobia' sugar-coats a bias. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The word is in common usage, and is widely understood. And for the record: "phobia... a fear, aversion or hatred, esp morbid or irrational" - Chambers 20th Century Dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not call other people's comments "utter nonsense". That is uncalled for, unnecessary and unuseful for maintaining a peaceful discussion. --87.79.210.245 (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This usage of "phobia" is in general use, and the argument is hair-splitting. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia is the established, widely accepted, scholarly, and completely uncontroversial, term for hatred of Muslims. JonFlaune (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with my friends AndyTheGrump and JonFlaune, and I reserve the balance of my time.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to pile on here. We have to go with the widely accepted term, even though I understand that the terminology may appear questionable, particularly since "phobia" is used for things many people in the Western world have traditional reservations against (e.g. Islam, homosexuality) while hatred against things heavily supported by the West is labeled as "anti" (e.g. Anti-Semitism). However, this simply isn't the place to raise these concerns, no matter how valid they may or may not be. --87.79.210.245 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything sounded good until 87.79... commented. We should be impartial, and not use phobia and whatnot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Impartial=complying with NPOV, so we should use the term the plurality of reliable sources have used. I don't know what that term is but arguments from first principals and personal opinions about terminology can just be ignored. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Islanaphobia is a dislike of Muslims, that is how he has been discorbed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The impartial solution is to use the established term. JonFlaune (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be in wide (but not general) use but is in no way valid or impartial. The term is a politically loaded pejorative intended to manipulate the reader's perspective and is only ever used in that capacity.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Islamophobia" needs to be replaced with a neutral expression. A phobia is an irrational fear. Given that Islamic immigration is an issue that divides the population of many Western countries, you can not justify such choice of words. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. The Adolf Hitler article is an excellent example of objectivity. If you can omit the word "phobia" from him, you can also omit the word from Breivik. ManUnited4Ever (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a sorta silly conversation. What terminology will we axe next? Francophobia? Sinophobia? Xenophobia? All these words mean an irrational fear/dislike/hatred of some group of peoples. It seems to me pretty obvious Mr. Behring fits pretty well into the "irrational" classification. Unless someone here wants to argue he was acting rationally. NickCT (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia is a well worn term at this stage, that applies exactly to the type of hatred Breveik espoused. There is no argument here. We go by common usage in reliable sources. Period.Griswaldo (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually Griswaldo, your making a logical fallacy, because everybody uses it, it means its ok. its like saying the word negro is ok because its established.

if the term is illogical in common usage, then the correct logical term must be used, and just like it was ok to black people for far worse stuff in germany, even if it was the established, noncontroversal and scholarly usage in nazi germany, does not make it ok. what makes it ok, is the logical naturescience behind it. And for that, you have to have ARGUMENTS. Why would we use francophobia,sinophobia,naziphobia then?

By what logic do you have griswaldo, that you can use islamophobia but not naziphobia, patriphobia or democratphobia, liberalphobia or conservativephobia?

It would make no SENSE. and thus, the scholarly established term is as incorrect usage as the belief that the earth is flat. which it at one time was done by scholars and established non controversal usage.

Having the "establishment uses it" overrule LOGIC is not....well logical. so unless you can come up with any argument, then the usage of islamocriticismphobia would be a valid form aswell, since if the other "phobias" would apply, so would this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.101.137 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

the term, while I am not a fan of it, is fine as it is in scholarly and general use. Oh and 109, if wikipedia were being written in 211 instead of 2011 we would go with the earth being at the centre of the universe, as that is what the sources would say. Our opinions our meaningless, the sources are what we go by. Your 'logic' is WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Killer is not a reliable source

According to Associated Press here:
Adam Geller, AP National Writer (30 July 2011). "Norway gunman's tale diverges sharply from reality". San Jose Mercury News. Oslo, Norway. Associated Press.,
the killer's accounts often don't match what happened. Please take that into account when editing the article. --Javaweb (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Where matters of fact in the world (ie, actions and events) are concerned, relying on his statements or his manifesto should be careful to explicitly notice the source. When it comes to what's going on in his head (his opinions, motivations, beliefs, etc) then there is hardly a better source than the horse's mouth. causa sui (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Right animal. Wrong end. Realistic self-awareness is almost guaranteed to be in short supply under these circumstances. He also copy-pasted and wrote this with hopes that it would make him look heroic. --Javaweb (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I get where you're coming from, but it's hardly encyclopedic for us to engage in psychoanalysis in this article. If people want to use the manifesto as a window into his subconscious (and they do), they are welcome to do it. But we can't and shouldn't. causa sui (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. While I am presenting my opinion here, I am doing it to show an example of why taking his words at face value might not work. There is little value in long-distance, cross-cultural, armchair psychiatry. This is a problem with isolating a few sentences from a 1500+ page primary document by the article's subject, which can end up cherry-picking the 1/10th of 1 percent of a document to make a certain point. I prefer reliable secondary sources. --Javaweb (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

The newly revised WP:Words to avoid offers us some possibilities. While other sources may not be very good for his thoughts either, he may very well present to us a mind that appears to be determined, while at the same time being a manic-depressive.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He does say its not his own in the compendium. I did some reading this week and did cross checks of the publication. My thoughts on this fellow are we will have to hold and see what happens after his trial, this fellow released a compendium of other peoples work – so it is not from the horses mouth so to speak. --Hemshaw (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

While the "manifesto" contains texts written by others, it also contains long parts that are actually written by Breivik.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the pages, checking the sentences used has led me to publications I would not have even considered reading before. I almost fell asleep at the keyboard when it got to farming --Hemshaw (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On a number of occasions, Breivik (if it's not a Ghostwriter who has written it for Breivik) refers explicitly to himself. It's sometimes not clear which pages are exactly covered by text that Breivik has written himself, and he may also have interspersed plagiarized content among his own words.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. --Hemshaw (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that a SPS is reliable for information about the subject. Thus if hos manifesto says he thyinks X we can use it as a soource for that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the default assumption is that self-published sources can be used. However, if there is substantiated doubt about the veracity of statement contained in a self-published source, that would indicate that the source needs to be cited inline, and may not be used altogether. Even statements that someone makes about his own thoughts can be false.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out where in policy it says that please?Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Gladly, WP:ABOUTSELF. You are much welcome.--Cerejota (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Err where does it say that "if there is substantiated doubt about the veracity of statement contained in a self-published source it may not be used altogether". In fact where does it say that the SPS has to be accurate?Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (emphasis added) But the general principle override that guideline, if the source is found to be unreliable, or only reliable with regard to certain aspects of the topic. The assessment of the reliability must be made on the basis of independent reliable sources. If such sources indicate that the source, or part of it, is not reliable (e.g. because of a tendency of self-aggrandisement or deception), then we cannot use the self-published source as a citable source. We may still use it as a primary source, but we would have to indicate the doubts expressed about the source in reliable sources when doing so. The guideline itself is not explicit here, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Part of the problem (or maybe the problem) with this discussion is that we seem to be trying to determine beforehand how we're going to use and cite the manifesto. This is difficult since nobody wants to bind themselves to a principle before they've had a chance to see it applied. In general I think it's fair to say that self-published sources like the manifesto are fair game for this article, but that constraint and critical judgment may be required where statements attributed to the manifesto are internally contradictory or otherwise potentially misleading. I understand that having it codified in a principle is helpful, but it looks like we are going to have to use critical judgment in each individual case. Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken reference

In one of the edits, <ref name="Schmalz0725"> was deleted and now we see error text
125. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Schmalz0725; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text .
"View History" searching showed it referenced url
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/christian-terrorist-madman-how-do-we-understand-anders-behring-breivik/2011/07/25/gIQA7c6XYI_blog.html
I had nothing to do with the link or its deletion but here's the link. --Javaweb (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Few changes

I removed a few words, although they might be seen as critical the edits are nonetheless grounded in policy.

I removed a Jewish qualifier and the description of Pipes as a neo-conservative. He isn't, so he says and the source doesn't say he is either. So unless the original manifesto described Pipes as a neo-conservative it shouldn't be mentioned. I also removed the "neo-con" lead for Geller. Sounds pejorative. I also don't think Lewis should be listed as a "Middleeast expert." A more appropriate term would be historian, scholar, something professional.

Good call. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with the edits.--Cerejota (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 attacks

That section is a mess. It should be a summary of the events in the main article, however it includes information not related to the attacks themselves, but about the capture and court showing etc. Until I removed it it even included something about victim's funerals, which has nothing to do with this topic. I also think we should separate into a separate section the legal proceedings against Breivik, separate from this section, begining with his arrest, interrogation, eventual admissions, etc. While these stem from the attack, they are separate events. --Cerejota (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that the capture and court showing will be part of the article on the attacks, so we should add the condensed information about this in this section (which is a summary of the article about the attacks). I agree that it is not necessary to include information about the mourning and the funerals in this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

EDL statement

In the article it says, "EDL issued a statement denouncing terror as a tool on 26 July 2011." That's nice, but what exactly is it supposed to mean? Cdh1984 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a question for the English Defence League, not Wikipedia. — Bility (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just read the preceding sentences. Breivik expressed admiration for the EDL. They were simply distancing themselves from him with that statement. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Exacly, they are denying any link. Just like Miss Philips.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it makes no grammatical sense. A tool of what? If they want to express their distance from the actions of Anders Breivik ON WIKIPEDIA then they should try to do it in a manner that is comprehensible to English speakers. I'll just go ahead and delete it shall I? Cdh1984 (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

NO, you have no consensus to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

YES. What the hell is it even supposed to mean? Answer that. Jeez, at least learn the language of the country you are 'defending' or I will have to "denounce you as a tool". Cdh1984 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What it says, that terrorism should not be used as a tool (Something used in the performance of an operation), not sure why this is so difficult to work out.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC).

On second thoughts, leave it in. If the EDL wants to use their PR opportunity to look like drooling idiots, so-be-it. Herp derp :P Cdh1984 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I know what a tool is but thank you for the definition. The reason it is difficult to work out is that it is not a grammatical construction that would be used by anyone with a reasonable grasp of English, so its intended meaning is somewhat clouded. Now that you have explained to me what the sentence was supposed to convey, I would recommend the word "tactic" to replace "tool". Cdh1984 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the EDL used the word 'tool' it would seem best not to replace it - though the link to the source is broken, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found the EDL statement here [7], though I'm not sure that the source is WP:RS. It seems that the 'tool' comment is actually a quotation from Breivik, rather than the EDL's words. The statement does however state that "No form of terrorism can ever be justified and the taking of innocent lives, can never be justified.": ungrammatical, but clear enough. If we can confirm that this is the EDL statement, we should probably quote that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How aboouit this [8][[9][User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - the first link is to their website, so it is presumably WP:RS for their opinions - I'll revise the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the Call of Duty article mention Behring Breivik (or the controversy of video game violence in general)?

I recently submitted the following to the Wikipedia entry of Call of Duty:

Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik used Call Of Duty to train for his murders of 77 civilians in 2011, according to his manifest .

The submission was removed by another contributor. Policies WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM were cited, and that we should wait "a few months at least" before mentioning Breivik.

My counterargument is:

1. As of writing, the Google search ´breivik "call of duty"´ yields "About 320,000 results" and 428 news articles. Hence mentioning is relevant.
2. Entire sections of the Wikipedia entry for Call Of Duty concern recent events, e.g. the section for Modern Warfare 3. Hence recent events are generally accepted in this entry.

The talk entry is found here.

Do the editors of the Breivik page (you) have an opinion on the subject matter? If you align with my view, how is the topic best brought up with the moderators of the Call of Duty page?--Bjornte (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Google search doesn't tell you anything useful. Wikipedia only cares about reliable sources. You can't count those with a Google search. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I would look at: Is "Call of Duty" mentioned in the context of an article about Breivik, or the other way round? If the former is the case, then that would argue against inclusion. However, if reliable sources have reported in articles about video games that a number of spree killers have played "Call of Duty", then the info might be included in a list of such spree killers, for example. Breivik's manifesto itself is only admissible as a source on this page, per WP:SPS, but not on other pages.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have notified the wikproject on video games to get some input. It may in fact belong here, but not on the COD page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The question of relevance aside, Breivik can be a reliable source about himself on any article, not just this one. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Breivik's self-published manifesto is not admissible in other articles.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One of us misunderstands WP:SELFPUB and I don't think it's me. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with Cs32en. It's not an RS question, but a weight question. If the coverage is about Breivik and mentions Call of Duty to inform us about Breivik, then we should mention it in this article, but not in the articles on Call of Duty. causa sui (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:SELFPUB said at some point of time that self-published sources can only be used in the article about the author of it. That may have been relaxed somewhat. However, if a source provides information about person A, and can only be used insofar as it refers to person A, then that is an indication that any use of the source about things that related to person B or issue C would be undue. So I would start the discussion about the source from this assumption. Showing that the assumption is not valid with respect to a specific case would have to be based on secondary sources, and then it is likely that the secondary sources cover everything that needs to be included in the article, and take precedence over any self-published sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

NBC news had mention that Anders Behring Breivik played WOW (World of Warcraft). Should that also be mention? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43990975/ns/world_news-europe/ --XkariX (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Italic text

No to both questions, this is about weight.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that sources about Breivik will sometimes mention Call of Duty or World of Warcraft. It's not so clear to me that in the future a source about Call of Duty would mention Breivik. If there is in fact mention of him, for example, in articles criticizing the game, (perhaps in combination with other criminals) then it becomes relevant to mention there. Wnt (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that discussion is better had in the article about the video game, not here. Mentioning it here I would be opposed to, not just under WP:UNDUE, but frankly about relevancy. I haven't seen much chatter beyond the comentariat and partisan sources that say ALL VIDEO GAMES ARE EVIL to justify this as a focus of Breivik's motives for the attack. Might warrant inclusion on Video game controversy, but that section of the article is already disputed. As reminder, however, an article on a product, such a video game, lack the protections that a BLP has, so the criteria for inclusion is a little more lax. --Cerejota (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually a discussion already exists one the page for the Call of Duty franchise and the last time I checked (a few days ago) the consensus was not to add it there either.--76.66.186.54 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Freemasonry in Norway

Please add this article to "Category:Freemasonry in Norway". --Ønography (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

"Christian terrorist"

I like how Wikipedia prominently displays the religion of Anders Breivik, and calls him a "Christian terrorist" in the first sentence, but yet, doesn't do likewise for, say, Mohamed Atta. --Andrew1193 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of that is to be patently offensive to Christian wikipedians in order to get them riled up and fighting mad. Don't let it. This will not withstand the neutrality test as it is blatantly using wikipedia as a vehicle for personal polemicism and bigotry. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, nobody is used to seeing the word "terrorist" beside anything else other than "Muslim" or "Islam". So I am to believe that when Wikipedia says "Christian terrorist", it is using it as a "vehicle for personal polemicism and bigotry", yet when "Muslim terrorist" or "Islamic terrorist" is used, it is simply neutral reporting? Hardly! ReliableCoaster (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, "the purpose" ? I would have thought that it's much more likely that no one cares about <insert random capitalized belief system> wikipedians and that most things can be explained by stupidity lack of familiarity with policy. It's just about what the sources say in the end. If many sources describe Breivik as a X terrorist it will be in the article (and may even make it into the lead if there are enough of them). If they don't, it won't. There's a good case to be made for Atta's infobox to include the religion attribute based on the existing contents of the article and the importance of that component in the crime. There's also a case to be made for the lead to say something about it, but the place to argue for those changes based on policy and sources is over at Mohamed Atta. He's dead so WP:BLPCAT doesn't apply. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since mainstream sources do not call him a Christian terrorist, neither should we. TFD (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to delete another editors comment, sorry for that accident of timing. His book claims his fellow cell members are 'christian atheists' - what can anyone make of that oxymoron?

He criticizes the Pope (CHRISTIAN leader) for talking to Muslims - why him and not leaders of other religions that have talks with Islam? That means that obviously Christianity is something more to him. States that he is/wants to return Europe to that of the Knights Templar (CHRISTIAN group), has a cross on his shoulder/chest in some pics, sounds pretty Christian to me. ReliableCoaster (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ofm RS say he is a christian terrorist then we eport that. If they do not we can't assume it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, if he's not a Christian terrorist, then there are no Muslim terrorists either. If you follow the religion that carefully you don't do mass murder.

In the real world, with real world practical definitions, he is a Christian, and a terrorist, and his terror is inspired by Christianity because he thinks that Europe should be Christian and he is trying to kick out all the Moslems.Teapeat (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the "Christian terrorist" category should be removed. What does it mean?

• If it means that he was a Christian and a terrorist -- this should be solved by categories "Christians" and category "Terrorists". It does not make sense to create a category for any set of other "simple categories".
• If it mean that his terrorist attack has some direct connection to his Christianity (i.e. it was a religious attack), I don't see many sources for this.. 88.102.95.151 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Some sources

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\07\28\story_28-7-2011_pg3_3

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-rise-and-fall-of-geert-wilders8217-ideology-2011-07-27

http://www.news.az/articles/society/41354

http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-07/anders-breivik-christian-terrorist

Does not call him one but refers to the accusation.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Unnameable-terror/Article1-725092.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/anders-breivik-christian-terrorist_n_910379.html

So in fact there are sources for this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorist: http://news.yahoo.com/christian-terrorist-norway-case-strikes-debate-181559379.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.228.180 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

American paleoconservative pundit Steve Sailer, after stating that he had "read far more of his prose than I care to", had the following to say about the characterization of Breivik as "Christian":

For self-interested reasons, American liberals have clung to an initial description by a harried Norwegian policeman of Breivik as a “Christian fundamentalist.” In reality, Breivik used “Christian” as an American might use “Judeo-Christian”—as a cultural identity moniker in the armed conflict he wanted to launch against Muslims and, more importantly to him, elite whites. The most notable traits of Breivik’s character are a Nietzschean lack of Christian compassion and guilt, grandiose ambition, self-confidence, competitiveness, cynicism, and a lack of normal human emotions...” (emphasis added)

— Dale Arnett (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet the title of the article is not "Paleoconservative assessements of Breivik's mindset". Breivik's reference to the Knights Templar, and his intention to attend a Christian church service just before starting the attack clearly indicate that Breivik considers himself to be part of the institutionalized Christendom. If Christians would have been caring and loving people in all known history, then we would never have an article on the Spanish inquisition. Reliable sources, especially news sources, also clearly describe him as a Christian.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Libertarian"

Just want to note that Progress Party.... "libertarianism was earlier a component of its ideology, this has in practice gradually more or less vanished from the party" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Party_%28Norway%29

I am not familiar with Wiki policy but doesn't it seem weird to include libertarian if this is true? It seems to misrepresent Breivik as a former libertarian, when in fact he was in a youth organisation promoting "right-wing populism in the 1990s"? As I said, I am not familiar with Wiki policy so just wondering 62.20.230.62 (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Norwegian right-wing terrorist"

That should be changed. I am a right wing too, but that does not make me a terrorist. It would sound better if it read "right wing extremist" instead. Norum 15:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The media have portrayed him as a far-right, but actually he is a Neocon Christian right. The American-style Christian right has nothing to do with the European nationalist rights. --95.236.81.67 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.libertariantoday.com/2011/07/anders-breivik-christian-conservative.html

The talk page is for discussing changes based on policy and what sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Giving him in that label doesn't label all Norwegian right-wingers as terrorists. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That is how terrorism experts are describing him. The standard typology of terrorism groups them as left-wing, right-wing, religious, nationalist, etc. Does not imply that those groups are inherently terrorist. TFD (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we say he is a terrorist and what he is fighting for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree using the term Norwegian right-wing terrorist no more implies that right-wing all Noewegians are terrorists than calling Andre Ward an American Boxer implies that all Americans are boxers.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that it has since been changed to extremest. There seems to be an agreement here to terrorist (unless I missed another section that said otherwise) so it should likely be reinstaited.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a longtime defender of not using the term terrorism or terrorist at all in wikipedia. Period. If we banned the term, 90% of the contention in a shitload of articles would go up in smoke and we could write articles from which the reader draws their own conclusion. However, a number of muslim extremists are named "terrorists" in their BLP, so I do not see a systemic objection to this, as there was a number of years ago. So edit war away... --Cerejota (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be using the term terrorist on wikipedia. Period.--Ønography (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There are people who say if we wouldn't have naked or nasty medical pictures all the arguments would go away. And so on. But Wikipedia breeds arguments - they find whatever issue they might. We should just stick with the sources. If you have a source that says he's not a terrorist by all means cite and explain what it says. Wnt (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Responses from those mentioned:section

I have removed this undue section, it doesn't belong here. This article is about the life of this mass murderer - his primary writings and comments people have made in response to him mentioning them do not belong here. The comments about press questions about the fact that the mass murderer mentioned them do not belong in this persons Biography - its tangential coat-racking and undue association in the BLP of a mass murderer - keep it focused - this article is about his life story - if there is an article about his manifesto there may be a case to add such detail there. Personally I think its time to fork it out. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertions:

1. The only AfD on the manifesto closed as a redirect, it is clear a consensus that discussion of the manifesto belongs here.
2. BLP protections on publications do not apply to the author's own work, and his mention of other notable people is certainly to be included here. Not including that information in the other people's article is to be decided there, not here. We cannot use BLP to mean we must protect someone from their own works, or what others are saying based on his own works. For example, we do not keep bad reviews of a movie director's work out of their BLPs simply to protect them, or keep from mentioning some other director that this director list as an influence in order to protect the other director - criticism of a movie director's work is central to his or her biography, as are his or her influences, just as the motivations, influences and reasoning for a mass murderer are central to his or her biography.
3. This article, or any other BLP, are not just about their "life story" but also about what made them notable, and what is made notable by this notability. Breivik would have been unknow if it weren't for the attacks he performed, and the subsequent attention RS have given to him as a person. Critical in this assesment is the focus RS give to his motivations, influences, and ideology. Not mentioning he was influenced by Fjordman is like not writing that Osama bin Laden was a muslim. Its an omission of critical information about the subject, in an article about the subject.
4. There is not enough RS material that can be divorced from personal notability to have a stand-alone article on the Manifesto itself. There might be, and we can do a WP:SUMMARY if that time comes.

--Cerejota (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That section was rather verbose,[10] but we should preserve the sources and make at least an aggregate statement that the sources he cited universally denounced the attack and distanced themselves from Breivik. Off2riorob, because you're one of the biggest supporters of BLP policy, I'm very surprised that you would completely remove mention of efforts by individuals named here to distance themselves from such an act as this. Wnt (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

While I understand what Off2riorob is doing, I have to say that Wnt has a point. As it stands, the article is already a coatrack for Breivik's radical ideology, and it's unlikely that we'll be able to avoid that. We can't give them equal time but we probably ought to give them some time. causa sui (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The anti-Islamic writers he quoted are saying the same thing: they were not advocating his actions. Can't we just say that once and have a major paper prove they said that? Any sociopath can attach to any viewpoint to justify his actions. Lee Harvey Oswald thought Castro's Cuba was being treated unfairly. We don't blame pro-Castro folks for influencing him. Unless the writers were advocating his actions, guilt by association is not fair. This article should not be a coat-rack to argue European immigration. The killer is known for a mass killing. He was not well-known outside of that "achievement". --Javaweb (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

But we also need to know wjat he claikjs are his reason for doing that. So we need to know what he claims to be influenced by. And for balance we need their rejection of his actions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We can list who he quoted and, since they are all adamant that they did not advocate what he did, a short statement to that affect, with a link to their replies. --Javaweb (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I believe we should by now be working on 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence. These responses would well fit into that article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to restore that article. Many of the media sources were about the manifesto rather than the author or the attacks, and it would allow more verbose descriptions such as the section that was deleted here. But I still think that as a matter of BLP, if we're going to mention names of people in this article, they deserve a clarification that they were not supporting this attack. Wnt (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? We are not asserting they supported him in any way, are we? so there needs no rebuttal..at least not in this mass murderers BLP. .."and the, reportedly insane, mass murderer said he agreed with jonh and harry..and mary. - the focus here is about the subject of the article. I did remove the section and created a redlink to a manifesto article, The Manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik with a "nudge" to fork it out to such an article, as per Petri Krohn's title also - 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence - It will be a much better place to deal with all the coatracking guilt by association stuff and a lot less people will read it there, making it correspondingly less violating anyways. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry

There is a big paragraph on freemasonry whih i think gives undue weight by it being so long. here Thoughts? Pass a Method talk 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the section undue and needs a trim.[ I don't think it needs a section of its own. Looking at a couple of the citations this knights templer association is the rantings of a reportedly insane mass murderer and some over egging of the details in the citations. [User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Breivik's antisemitism

from the Guardian: " And, last but not least, Breivik is antisemitic but pro-Israel, as the state of Israel is the first line of defence against the Muslim expansion – he even wants to see the Jerusalem temple rebuilt. His view is that Jews are OK as long as there aren't too many of them – or, as he wrote in his manifesto: "There is no Jewish problem in western Europe (with the exception of the UK and France) as we only have 1 million in western Europe, whereas 800,000 out of these 1 million live in France and the UK. The US, on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem." He realises the ultimate paradox of a Zionist Nazi – how is this possible? " http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/anders-behring-breivik-pim-fortuyn?commentpage=5#start-of-comments

I think that his view regard Jews should be included.ProgramAngel (talk)

Sure. Why not. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece, written by Slavoj Žižek, and not a piece of reportage. There must be a better source for this. Also, people ought to read the entire piece before suggesting addition here or anywhere else. This quote is early on in the piece, and Zizek's final destination is actually a harsh critique of Zionism. From the second to last paragraph:

• "There is only one solution to this enigma: it is not that the US fundamentalists have changed, it is that Zionism itself has paradoxically come to adopt some antisemitic logic in its hatred of Jews who do not fully identify with the politics of the state of Israel. Their target, the figure of the Jew who doubts the Zionist project, is constructed in the same way as the European antisemites constructed the figures of the Jew – he is dangerous because he lives among us, but is not really one of us."

If you're confused about how he gets from A to B, then you shouldn't be surprised, because clarity is not one of Zizek's strong suits. My point though, is that it is not helpful to cherry pick quotes to serve a political agenda, which is what all kinds of groups are doing surrounding this unfortunate event. Let's try not to do that ourselves.Griswaldo (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

even if this is only opinion the quote are defiantly anti semitic and in any context. saying that there is Jew problem in the US but not in Europe because the different number show that he does have problem with Jewish influence.I would say that his attitude is more or less anti semitic.ProgramAngel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Some Nazis sympathized with Zionism, as that ideology implied that Jewish people would leave Europe for the Middle East. Breivik appears to see Zionists primarily as an ally against Islam. His criticism of Hitler is often along the lines of "He had good intentions, but was blinded by emotions and chose the wrong means." I would prefer to add any content related to this area based on multiple reliable sources (preferably scholarly sources), rather than based on commentary in newspapers.  Cs32en Talk to me  07:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Breivik on Serbian ultranationalism

Breivik was fed Serbian wartime propaganda that is very alive on the internet.Same ultranationalist propaganda that caused deaths of thousands and thousands of people in the Balkans conflict in the 90's.That regime is still on trial at the ICTY The Hague Tribunal.The Inteligensia in Belgrade should be on trial just as he is.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2011/07/norway-killings?page=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.129.112.165 (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor question about wikilinking alternate names in infobox

While "Sigurd Jorsalfar" (Sigurd I of Norway) is wikilinked in the text where it's given context, should it also be wikilinked in the infobox? Would that be too confusing, suggesting that Sigurd I has something to do with this guy, or would it instead help readers looking at the infobox to find out that the name is a reference to a historic figure rather than just a name (like "Andrew Berwick" is)? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe adding a brief explanation in parentheses, which includes the link, works.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Jorsalfar: I wasn't sure if the parentheses were in the quote or were the newspaper's emendation, but I'll leave it the way you put it, now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In his paphlet, Breivik writes: "Everyone is using codenames; mine is Sigurd (the Crusader) while my assigned mentor is referred to as Richard (the Lionhearted)." (p. 1390)   Cs32en Talk to me  23:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. In that case, I think we should include it in parentheses as it appears, but how then shall we explain the reference? "Sigurd (Jorsalfar)—in reference to" etc.? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the text from the pamphlet as saying that Breivik's code name is "Sigurd", and that he explains to the reader that by "Sigurd", he refers to Sigurd the Crusader (i.e. Sigurd I of Norway). If that's correct, the code name is "Sigurd", not "Sigurd (the Crusader)" or "Sigurd (Jorsalfar)". I don't see how to read the text otherwise, but maybe there is another interpretation.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik was member of "Norwegian Defence League" under the pseudonym "Sigurd Jorsalfar".^ref The name is translated to "Sigurd the Crusader",^ref but the pseudonym was still Sigurd Jorsalfar. The organization's member lists were not kept secret so "everyone" used pseudonyms. Apparently Breivik was kicked out, as his views were too extreme for the organization.^ref Keanu (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion of Anders Behring Breivik

(A) Should we include the religion of Anders Behring Breivik in the infobox?

(B) Should we, in view of what reliable sources report, give the religion as Christian, cultural Christian, Church of Norway, or some other name?

  Cs32en Talk to me  23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in the infobox

Yes, we should include the religion in the infobox.

• Include - Wikipedia's standard (in other articles) for determining a person's religion pretty much comes down to "what do they say they are?" As I said in the edit summaries, if we're going to call Osama bin Laden a Muslim, we have to call this guy a Christian. Going against WP:NPOV and deciding who is or is not a true believer opens the door to extremists deciding that the Pope John Paul II or Martin Luther King, Jr. "aren't Christian" because one is Catholic and the other was a socialist. Breiviks's actions, though more representative of the devil than God, were done to try and advance his idea of a "Christian culture." He goes on at length about how important a "Christian culture" is, and he states that he considers himself "%100 Christian." Wrong as he was, those are his claims. I would consider "Cultural Christian" an acceptable compromise, though, since he does say that he doesn't have a relationship with God. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• We would gravely fail our readers if we did not mention his religion in the infobox. That many Christians (everywhere on the political spectrum) are now racing to distance themselves from him is understandable, and the controversy is a product of the fear and heated emotions related to the frenzy to avoid any hint of guilt by association. But that it is a difficult and politically charged question does not excuse us from the editorial obligation to inform our readers that Breivik professed adherence to the Christian religion. causa sui (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support We should include the religion in the infobox here, as we do in other cases, including Bin Laden.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include (Here via Feedback Request Service.) The relevant policy appears to be Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates and the material linked from there. Religious identification in an infobox is relevant here despite the fact that this isn't a "category" question per se as per the last paragraph of that section. The linked guideline [[11]] has several points to evaluate here, clearly id needs to be based on reliable sources and (as per #Religion) there, self-identification. What I've seen of sources suggests those bars are met. The question of Breivik's faith is relevant as it is, as near as I can tell, the subject (by itself) of coverage in reliable sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include -- The religion a person identifies with should be included in the infobox, and without side remarks (such as "self-identified but disputed") adjacent to it. If there happens to be somebody else (or a number of others) who disagrees with the subject's self-identification (i.e. "he not a 'true' xyz...") then that should go into the article (not the infobox) if it is noteworthy. For instance, there are many people -- particularly moderate Muslims -- who would dispute whether Osama bin Laden is a "true" Muslim given all of the violence that he perpetrated. But his infobox does not mention that -- instead, it simply says what sect of Islam he identifies with. --Shadowlink1014 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include Religious identification is wholly relevant, significant to the article and not contentious at all. An overwhelming amount of reliable sources describe him as Christian, as does Breivik himself in his own words. This is really just common sense. Most people would agree that Muslim terrorists aren't "true Muslims" (in that they follow an extreme and twisted form of the religion), yet we don't hesitate to call their religion 'Islam' in infoboxes. So I'm really scratching my head as to why people are stirring up conflict about calling someone who is a Christian "a Christian". I also understand that Christians are trying to distance the religion from this man, but it would indeed be a gross failure of Wikipedia, and a blatant intrusion of systematic bias, to suppress this information. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - Given that so many reliable source make reference to his religion when discussing the topic, it would be doing a disservice to our readers to exclude it. Subject himself makes frequent religious reference in association with the events for which he is known, as do reliable sources. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - in addition to the other reasons above, the killer identifies with the Knights of the Christian Crusades. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 2011-08-01T20:28:01

• Include per all of the above comments. The long-held standard of including the religion the subject self-identifies with, as verified by reliable sources, certainly applies here.--JayJasper (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include At then end of the day he has called himself a Chrisitan, And it is not for anyone to say he is wrong (Its not like thre is an authoritive chrisitan source).Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - WP cannot show bias by including religion in the InfoBox of every single Muslim-affiliated terrorist, yet omit it from a Christian-affiliated terrorist. That would be the worst kind of bias, and would undermine WP's credibility. I do agree with AndyTheGrump below that, overall, religion should be omitted from all InfoBoxes (except perhaps religious leaders) because the nuance/context of the belief cannot be adequately explained in an InfoBox. However, until that "no religion" policy is adopted WP-wide, we cannot put religion in Muslim article InfoBoxes, and omit from Christian InfoBoxes. --Noleander (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include as it seems to be the current standard practice (Osama bin Laden, Ali Hassan al-Majid, Ayman al-Zawahiri...). Systemic bias must be resisted. Prolog (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - Seems relevant to his notability. His used his faith partly as justification for notable actions, no? NickCT (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Include. Would we seriously be having this conversation if he were Muslim? Absolutely not. He identified as a Christian and did what he did in the name of Christianity. The scramble to disown him does not suddenly change the policy on self-identification to which we have always adhered. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include - I have now 3 times had to edit this article, re The weapon in the photograph, is a fully customised Colt AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine manafactured exclusivly by Colt LLC, it is made for and used by the US special forces only. To simple say it is a gun or a standard issue AR-15 is wrong. The fact that this has happened 3 times now, for no good reason? 'Whose interest does it serve' MarcusLeDain (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we should not include the religion in the infobox.

• Exclude At the moment there is no way to settle this issue by using reliable sources. It will remain contentions for some time. If I had to stake a claim on the truth I'd say that he's culturally religious essentially in the way that most Scandinavians are but as an extremist. He has taken a normal religious cultural identity and shaped it into his own version of extremist European nationalism. I think this is a very meaningful part of who he is and what he did, but until the dust settles and some actual scholarship is done on this person and on these events what I think is true will not have the force of a majority of reliable sources behind it. So for now this is simply a minefield.Griswaldo (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude. I have previously argued that having often-contentious fields like 'religion' or 'ethnicity' in infoboxes is wrong in principle - such topics (where relevant) are much better described in the body of the text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - I largely agree re "having often-contentious fields like 'religion' or 'ethnicity' in infoboxes is wrong in principle" - however, I think our policies on this issue recognize "self-identification" as being an important standard for categorization. I think that standard is met here. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Exclude. His Christianity is a subject of dispute and inclusion in the infobox seems to be an example of POV pushing. You'll note that Mohammed Atta, who, unlike Breivik, actually attended a place of worship does not have his religion in his infobox. Mamalujo (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Mamalujo, just added Atta's religion.

--Javaweb (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Exclude religion from such infoboxes in principle, and begin to do so by excluding it in this infobox

• [insert your comment here]

Exclude religion from such infoboxes in principle, but include religion in this infobox until a general consensus is reached with regard to such infoboxes

• [insert your comment here]

Description

Christian

• There is no encyclopedic reason, in abstraction from the political shouting matches, for us to descend into euphemisms. Breivik has provided us with an avalanche of evidence that he is an adherent of Christianity. causa sui (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Per reliable sources, Breivik is a member of the Church of Norway, and intended to attend a church service prior to his attacks. As we generally refer to the religion, not the church, adding Christian to the infobox would follow the established standard that we are applying in other such cases as well.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have already stated that I consider fields like 'religion' in infoboxes to be unnecessary. However, if people insist on having them, we have no choice but to follow what the overwhelming majority of sources say - that Breivik is a Christian. Note however that per WP:BLPCAT, this needs to be self-asserted, and Breivik is not entirely consistent on this. In any case 'cultural Christian' (the only other remotely-viable alternative) isn't a religion at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support this isn't really a question. The religion is Christianity. That's it. The 'Church of Norway' is the church or denomination. 'Cultural Christian' flat out isn't a religion, it's a personal philosophy that exists within the scope of Christianity. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - He is clearly identified as a christian in reliable sources and we should not be overly specific to protect overly-sensitive Christians. "Christian" is the most accurate, in concurrence with above statement by Swarm. To be clear I support the Infobox entry as, Christianity. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the same reasons as others --Javaweb (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• Support per above comments and reliable sources, refer to the religion in the inbox rather than the church or denomination. The latter can be discussed in the text of the article, if need be.--JayJasper (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support He has said he is a chrisitan, and all the concentration on 'Cultural Christian' (his words, so he is no more reliable for this then his claim to be a christian) is an attmept to distance him from mainstream religion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - InfoBoxes are not the place for nuance and subtlety. The reader can go to the body of the article (or footnotes next to the InfoBox word "Christian") to get more details. --Noleander (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per sources. The array of religion-related beliefs and stances should be documented elsewhere. Prolog (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Seems clear and to the point. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The following additional choices were added on August 4, 2011:

(a) In addition to describing Breivik as a Christian in the infobox, we should also indicate the denomination, i.e. Lutheran, in the infobox.

• Support We should indicate the denomination, as we do, for example, in the infobox for Osama Bin Laden.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Though it should say Church of Norway, not Lutheranism. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per standard and precedent. Per Swarm, specify Church of Norway.--JayJasper (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

[Please add your comment here.]

• Support as per above comments. Other articles do it and its not excessive detail. Also reduces chances of "how dare they say he's one of us"-style disputes. I'll abstain from declaring what denomination should be used. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) When describing Breivik as a Christian in the infobox, we should not indicate the denomination, i.e. Lutheran, in the infobox.

[Please add your comment here.]

(c) Other suggestions to be implemented in connection with describing Breivik as a Christian in the infobox.

[Please add your comment here.]

---

Cultural Christian

• Comment There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about this concept. While I'm not entirely convinced about this particular combination, there is a literature in the sociology of religion on "cultural religion" and it has been specifically applied to the type of Christianity most commonly practiced in Scandinavia. For two references see my comment here. I'm not arguing for the application of this label at this time, but merely pointing out that there is more to it than a "personal philosophy" or the notion that it is "not a religion." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd not seen that. It is problematic in this context though - as you say, 'cultural religion' and cultural Christian' aren't quite the same thing. Of course 'not a religion' is an oversimplification, but it is an oversimplification that results from the very idea that (a) everyone must either have 'a religion', or alternately, explicitly reject one, and (b) that there are discreet 'religions' in the first place, beyond the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of individuals. Both ideas are implicit in most orthodox Judeo-Christian-Islamic theologies, but are by no means self-evident. Not that any of this gets us any nearer to deciding what was going on inside Breivik's head. As I've suggested, perhaps the solution is for Wikipedia to try to avoid such things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think we should say anything emphatic about his religion, in an infobox or in the article without multiple high quality sources that 1) identify said religion and 2) clearly show how it is meaningful to his notability.Griswaldo (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

According to his manifesto, he identifies himself as a cultural christian, I think it would be a safe bet to put that as his current religion, until higher quality news sources or indeed his own court testimony can be found otherwise. {User talk:elcor101|talk]] 13:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcor101 (talk • contribs)

No, we can't do that. He says many things in that document. It's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need to use secondary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Church of Norway

• [insert your comment here]

Other

"Self defined"

The Church of Anders Behring Breivik

Maybe his religion is best discribed as 'self defined' as he does not fit any denomination, he may well be the founder of The Church of Anders Behring Breivik, its one and only member. If he gets followers his church could become a recognised religion.

Issues explored in Daily Show, Global Edition, with Jon Stewart.--Hemshaw (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does he fit?

A schematic of Christian denominational taxonomy. The different width of the lines (thickest for "Protestantism" and thinnest for "Oriental Orthodox" and "Nestorians") is without objective significance. Protestantism in general, and not just Restorationism, claims a direct connection with Early Christianity.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemshaw (talk • contribs)

Where does Martin Luther fit in there before the Protestant Reformation? And where are the reliable sources discussing this Church of Anders Breivik? While I trust Jon Stewart more than the "serious" news programs, if we want to pretend Breivik didn't think of himself as Christian, we're hypocrites for pretending the Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim. Jon Stewart made that point as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a very good diagram in general, just at a glance, the Coptic and Ethiopian churches aren't there, Marcionite and Nestorian Christianity were historically very important, too.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the Copts are counted as 'Oriental Orthodox' and Nestorianism is mentioned in the caption but not the diagram. Still a very narrow viewpoint being expressed.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As for where Breivik fits in, somewhere between non-believing Anglicans (the Church of Norway is much the same as the Church of England in that respect) and the nuttier kind of US protestant 'Christian Zionists'.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

"Anders Behring Breivik placed himself potentially outside of religious Christianity in a 1,500 page manifesto he has reportedly admitted to writing. He wrote: "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie." IBtimes reported, Breivik was quotes as stating "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment," </ref>Anders Breivik Manifesto: Shooter/Bomber Downplayed Religion, Secular Influence Key, July 25, 2011</ref>

Secular?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/186020/20110725/anders-breivik-manifesto-shooter-bomber-downplayed-religion-secular-influence-key.htm

--Hemshaw (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"This makes us Christian".Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian," he wrote.

Breivik's initial explanation comes in a segment of the manifesto entitled "Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom - reforming our suicidal church."

Later in the manifesto, when attempting to justify his "martyrdom operation" Breivik did not see himself as being religious.

"I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment," he wrote in a section of the manifesto.

Comment: I think we are trying to see sense from something that has none. --Hemshaw (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

On that I agree. But Breivik has stated he is a Christian, does he at any point actualy say he is not a christian? Many people are not very religious, but it does not mean thyat they are not Christian (just not active).Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To be blunt he's hard to understand, he contradicts himself. He has not stated he is 'not a muslim' he makes no claim to being religious, there is more assumption regarding his religion than fact. Reading more I cannot see any reason for a paragraph on his religion. Christian, in his info box? I cannot see the point. The article is also rather long now, encyclopedic? --Hemshaw (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But he does not say he is a Muslim, he says he is a Christian. So he does not have to deny something he has not said for us to not include it. But we do need him to dent something he had claimed for us not to include it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear from this quote that he's talking about himself. The quoted passage could mean that he's acknowledging that many Europeans are not Christians and saying that those secular people should not be excluded from the Eurocentric identity, so long as they support values that (he thinks) are inspired by Christianity. "We" means "we Europeans" not "We atheists". causa sui (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

oxymoron - a non religious christian--Hemshaw (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

for clarity: a contradiction in terms--Hemshaw (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As such he is either Christian, just not a very good one. Or he is not, inh which case whhy claik you are?Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

While on this case I don't give a (what the link says), we *have* to include religion among his self-justifications. Its not the infobox that is important, is the what the RS are universal in saying, that his attack was motivated by a belief in Christian supremacy over Islam.--Cerejota (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture

pls delete the heroic picture made by himself (near manifesto).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.18.188.85 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dont be a baby. It is how he looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.188.73 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WHAT? the first picture he published in his facebook is forbidden but this one is not?? You guys never cease amazing me. --201.164.145.114 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In the killer's document, he said he made the pictures to promote himself. Those pictures are not from a neutral point of view, they are from the killer's. --Javaweb (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

This is ridiculousness. Do you think those photos of congressmen in front of the US flag are not made to promote themselves? What do you mean those pictures are not from a neutral point of view? In any case, removing the picture takes away from the quality of the article. 98.20.142.3 (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this photo cant replaced the old one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwpkommunikacio/6032020769/ It says its CC BY 2.0 so it should be okey to use.81.170.228.65 (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly it's far more factual than any of his own contrived pictures. 211.31.36.156 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

That image is almost certainly license laundered. Only the copyright holder can release an image under a free license, and the uploader is not the copyright holder in this case. OTRS verification from Berg-Jacobsen would be required. decltype (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The picture totally misrepresents him, because he does not hold any military rank. It's like uploading a picture of Obama in an astronaut suit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.222.182 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The picture suggests the spree killer served in the military. This edit clarifies that he did not serve.

--Javaweb (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Why is both images needed for the article? How is the second image, the one with the military uniform helping in improving the article in a encyclopedic manner per WP:IMAGE#Offensive_images? 81.170.228.65 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to BE BOLD and remove the image of Breivik holding a machine gun - repeatedly, experts have requested that the media avoid glorifying perpetrators of mass killings by showing them in para-military uniform, holding weapons (particularly a weapon covered in add-ons that further add to its "mystique") or romanticising them in any way. Let's also look at other pages of mass murderers such as the virginia tech shooter or [12] or Colombine high school shooters [13]. I strongly believe we are better with NO picture than with the current image. If someone can source an appropriate image with the right copyrights that does not glorify his actions, that would be preferable, and I'll go request that on the appropriate help board right now. Thank you. --PaulWicks (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Manifesto in external links, removed

I have removed the link to the manifesto, because it is absolutely known to contain copyright violations.

Our policy on this is absolutely clear and unambiguous; WP:ELNEVER

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

Within the article, we made it quite clear - with reliable sources - that portions of the works are known copyright violations;[14]

The introductory chapter of the manifesto defining "Cultural Marxism" is a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation. Major parts of the compendium are attributed to the pseudonymous Norwegian blogger Fjordman. The text also copies sections of the Unabomber manifesto, without giving credit, while exchanging the words "leftists" for "cultural Marxists" and "black people" for "muslims".

For this reason, I have removed the link [15].  Chzz  ►  10:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources say lagerised ot copied, they do not say it violates anyones coptright. That is Synthatsis, I sugest you find a source that says it a copyrioght violation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, Slater we don't wait for secondary sources to say that something is a copyright infringement before we act. Where do you get that idea? The aim is to no contribute to a copyright violation, and we do so whether or not someone else has published the claim that it is a copyright violation.Griswaldo (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

s:Industrial Society and Its Future is public domain, and was recognized as such by Wikisource. Recently an absurd claim was made against it that the Unabomber retroactively the right to put anything he wrote in the public domain on account of civil liability; if we believe this our legal duty is to nuke and pave Wikipedia period, but I don't.

"“Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology - "Free Congress has given permission to website visitors to print this book for themselves, and to make copies of it for others, without charge." [16]

Fjordman's book "Defeating Eurabia" appears to be copyrighted (at the spam-blacklisted site www.lulu.com/product/paperback/defeating-eurabia/3892473) yet I found another site calling it public domain. [17] Also I don't know the copied text is from the book. Many of Fjordman's writings are available on a web site but I didn't see a statement about the license. [18] I have a feeling there is a release somewhere, but it would be good to do further research. There is no explicit evidence of a copyright violation given here - for example, no matter how vigorously Fjordman denounced Breivik, I see no mention of him filing suit to prevent the 2083 document from using his text.

Given that all but possibly one part is public domain, I think this argument fails. The status of Fjordman's works should be sorted out, but I don't see any clear evidence of WP:EL trouble. It is not the duty of editors to figure out the copyright status of every reference and external link before adding them; it is only their duty not to link to what they know is a copyright violation. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A lawsuit does not have to be filed by Peder Jensen (aka Fjordman) for it to be a copyright violation. That is a specious argument. When it is reasonable to assume a copyright infringement (due to clear copy paste without attribution) the correct procedure is to be cautious until there is evidence that there isn't one. It is also my understanding that in the United States, as well as all the member nations of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works "copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder, or rightsholder, is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights." (from Copyright). This means we pretty much assume that everything attributable to a recent source is copyrighted unless we have proof that it isn't.Griswaldo (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But no copyright has been enforced by the copyright holder.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So what?Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well as the blog user has not enforced his or her exclusive rights its in the public domaiin.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I was unaware that 1) an individual had to sue for copyright infringement within the first month of becoming aware of it or else lose his rights and 2) that should this individual chose to enforce his rights s/he has to shout it loudly from a top a mountain. Then again I was unaware of these things because they aren't even remotely true. Please stop pulling arguments out of thing air.Griswaldo (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim that is so. What's important to me is that we do not have to track down and argue an amateur court case about every copyright license for every EL and ref we put into an article! We just can't do it! We have absolutely no way to know whether the average website has permission to put up the information it has or not - any website, any issue. The "ELNEVER" stuff should only be invoked when you're dealing with a pretty notorious pirate site, when it's clear that the information is being shuffled around as one site and another is shut down, or when common sense tells you that there's no way in hell Universal Pictures licensed their film for Teeny_Bopper to put on his Myspace page. Here we have every reason to think that Fjordman probably wanted these postings to be available, and we certainly are not linking to anything we know is a violation. Wnt (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing copyright infringement with copyright enforcement. Our policies are meant so as we don't abet infringement. If you were a regular at the RS/N you'd see that it is standard practice to consider any source the infringes on copyright, whether the owner of the copyright has chosen to pursue his/her rights or not, as de facto unusable. When people copy another source word for word without attribution and without any known license to do so, we consider it a copyright infringement until proven otherwise. When such an issue is brought to light we certainly don't use WP:OTHERSTUFF as an excuse not to do the right thing. I'm done with this now.Griswaldo (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that only Fjordman's postings are at issue now? Wnt (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. When I skimmed the manifesto I found many other disturbing sources plagiarized in it, from white supremacy websites to Islamophobic rantings of the anti-jihad crowd. Just because new outlets have not mentioned all the plagiarism in the manifesto doesn't mean it isn't there and doesn't mean it isn't our responsibility not to link to it.Griswaldo (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Anders Breivik plagiarism" and then tell me that only Fjordman is the issue here. You might find things like this for starters.Griswaldo (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet, that source, a professional publisher, had no problem with linking directly to a copy of the manifesto. It's not our job to figure out whether 2000 words is Fair Use or not. Wnt (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. If there are any doubts it is absolutely your job to allay those doubts with proof. Like I said, it is more than reasonable to see this as a copyright infringement, indeed multiple infringements. Given that fact you need to prove otherwise. The absence of any current litigation does not prove anything, especially since the manifesto hasn't been out but a month. Anyone who wants to read it will find it by googling. They don't need our help, so at this time we don't take risks. What about that do you not understand?Griswaldo (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of other web-sites choose to link to copyvio's. We don't.  Chzz  ►  12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:SELFPUBLISH, we can use the manifesto as a source, regardless of its copyright status, and hence, we have to link to it as a source. So even if we do not allow it as WP:EL, it will still be accessible. We can source to copy-vios as primary sources, such as instances of plagiarism, AFAIK. I think is stretching the copyright issue to a thin hair away from WP:NLT. --Cerejota (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Citing and linking are two different issues, and should be discussed separately.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue has never been citing the manifesto as a reference, but linking directly to a copy of it. BTW, Cerejota, are you accusing people who are, per policy, protecting the project from abetting copyright infringement of making legal threats? I suggest you don't continue down that road.Griswaldo (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith dude... what I am saying is that people can go into weird places in the defense of the project, places that can ultimately go against what the project is about. For example, questioning the linking of textual, as opposed to pictorial material, on copyright basis, can question the entire basis of the project. Saying that we might incur on a crime, namely "contributory copyright infringement" by linking, something there is no bright-line consensus or office order, is indeed a thin hair away from WP:NLT - It is possible we shouldn't link as per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, but there is nothing in there about "contributory copyright infringement", and for good measure - we do not make legal judgements on the wiki. I do not question the good faith, I question that a dangerous mistake is being made in good faith. The difference is not trivial. Ultimately the EL issue I really don't care, but sourcing and citing I do. Its why we all joined wikipedia, and questioning that basis is dangerous - in particular making borderline claims of criminality, is not kosher.--Cerejota (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? There is less danger in being cautious, not the other way around. No one is saying anything about not citing, it's about not linking. WP:EL is about linking to external cites, not about citing a source. The copyright policy you quote is also about linking and it says exactly what we've been saying here: "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." It is more than reasonable to suspect that the external Web site is violating copyright. So we don't link to it. I don't understand what the problem is.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, please re-read the top of this thread, where I quoted from WP:ELNEVER, including ...Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement....  Chzz  ►  18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fact update?

Has the following been updated, if so by who and when:

"CNN could not independently verify that Breivik wrote the document or posted the 12-minute video, and Norwegian authorities would not confirm that the man in their custody wrote the manifesto, saying it was part of their investigation. Police told the Norwegian newspaper VG that the document is "linked" to Friday's attacks."

24 July 2011

Author name of manifesto 'Andrew Berwick, London'. --Hemshaw (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Killer's Mental State

When the police chief talks about sanity, he is concerned about the legal standard of culpability for the crime. If you are a nut with a gun and you don't know what you are doing, that is an insanity defense and the officer is saying it is not valid in this case. We cannot reliably say he is commenting on his mental health in general. Perhaps a qualifier about the 2 standards for the different purposes. --Javaweb (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Javaweb