Talk:Anders Behring Breivik/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

"Personal life"

Can we please retract the name of his family member? Like step-mother he apparently never even have seen?? There is absolutely NO indication that any family member was implicated. They must also be going through hell now, and wikipedia should NOT add to that.

I find it so very much, much more important to find out which writers/bloggers/politicians influenced him. That is important. And not his mothers maiden name -or work. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The names have been widely used by the international press, especially the name of the father, who also gave a TV interview with some widely publicized comments. If we mention his father's profession (which I think is necessary), we have already identified him as they share the same last name and there is only one diplomat Breivik. His father is also notable in his own right as a high ranking (former Envoy, ministerråd) diplomat. JonFlaune (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that the names have been used widely, also his half-siblings names. (Indeed, Breivik himself writes extremely private things about them). That does not mean that we have to use them here. I agree that all the general back-ground (diplomat, job, divorce) should be there, everything except the names. The names add absolutely nothing to our knowledge of Breivik (and his actions). The family were not public figures before this, and his father made one -1- interview -filmed from behind - basically saying he wanted to be left alone. Having their names there gives the article a "News of the World"-feeling: just gossip.

There are far, far more important issues. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(Ps.: If you plan to start articles about every single former Norwegian Envoy, (ministerråd)...then his father is notable in his own right...)

Leaving the names of his siblings and distant relatives out is unproblematic. But the degree of media attention the father receives, and his borderline notability in his own right, in addition to the fact that when we mention his profession we already identity him, makes it harder to argue for the exclusion of his name. Google News has 2,511 results for "Jens Breivik". There is also commentary focusing entirely on him[1]. JonFlaune (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One blog? Count me impressed. And how do you account for the names of the mother and step-mothers? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "blog", it's a column merely labeled by the publisher (The Telegraph) as a "blog". The Telegraph has less than 40 invited such columnists[2]. There are 2,510 other articles out there, and obviously I didn't read all of them. The difference between the father and mother is that there are 2,511 Google News results for the father and 46 for the mother, that the father is a notable person, that the father is effectively identified even without mentioning his name directly, and that the father gave an interview with some widely publicized comments. JonFlaune (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's only one RS, we probably shouldn't mention his name. You can find all his family member's name with a bit of googling, but we don't have to help. If his father receives a bunch more attention, then maybe we should name him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me: Exactly where did you find that there is "only one RS"? As pointed out in this discussion, there are 2,511 reliable sources on the father. JonFlaune (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted the line naming his mother because it's a likely a violation of WP:BLP. The only thing the line said was police didn't think her life was in danger, and the only reference given didn't even support that. The line adds nothing about the topic. It only serves to invade her privacy, and possibly (though not likely) put her in danger or subject her to harassment. So, I think the deletion was justified. If someone disagrees please take it to the BLP:Noticeboard. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to remove manifesto from media

Australian news has reported on an Anonymous effort to remove / invalidate Anders' manifesto from web sources. [[3]] This appears to be happening to the article page, as refences to the manifesto or statements sourced from it appear to be being deleted under the guise wp:nor. Citing an reference is not original research, particularly where the author is considered notable. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, editors are not going to mine the manifesto for quotes and add them to the article. That is original research. I've removed several cases where editors have sampled bits of the primary source presumably because they think that it provides some kind of insight that is worthy of an encyclopedia. Since they aren't reliable sources it really doesn't matter what they think. Extracts from the manifesto need to be selected by reliable secondary sources not random people on the internet. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We should only cite passages that have received attention in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not strictly true; while we shouldn't mine the manifesto for quotes for synthesis, it can be used as a primary source of factual information as discussed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.86.128 (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but there shouldn't be cases where that is necessary. If RS don't care about a factoid in the primary source and haven't reported it, why should we ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced lead

Successive edits have taken the focus of the lead away from the massacre and it now weighs heavily towards an analysis of Breivik's manifesto. Breivik is notable primarily for his role in the massacre, moreso than for his ranting manifesto. The article no longer reflects the requirements of WP:LEAD in this regard. There should be greater detail on the bombing/shootings. WWGB (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The manifesto is the stated reason for and rationale behind the attacks. This is different from a random shooting; it was perpetrated as an political objective. Plus, there is the article on the attacks, for in-depth information on the attack itself. This article is about him personally.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with redthoreau Pass a Method talk 03:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The attack article has the info about the attack. Although this one should also be mostly about the attack, it isn't, and the lead reflects that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A stronger focus on his beliefs and his manifesto in this article -- as opposed to the article on the attack itself -- is warranted. JonFlaune (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Added 2083 manifesto on commons and linked

Added 2083 manifesto on commons and linked. Please do not remove either. If you have a problem discuss here. Wikipedia is not censored! Gabi Teodoru (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabi, the Manifesto has been previously uploaded to Commons and deleted after an AfD-equivalent there. The new one will most likely be deleted in the same way. You can try to upload it to English Wikipedia under "fair use", but I somewhat doubt it'll survive for too long here either (but that hasn't been tested yet so that just my opinion).

PS. I took the liberty of refactoring your section heading here as it made the table of contents kind of hard to read (and its contents were repeated in the first sentence anyway). If you would prefer to keep your original section heading please feel free to revert my change and accept my apologies. --Xover (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Occupation

There is no evidence that Breivik is a farmer or engineer, indeed he has an education in business and commerce only to the secondary school level. Please do not put any other occupation into the article, but explain here first why you think this is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpa (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why delete the information on the July 25 hearing? (Lead.)

The lead , or the body of the text, should give some proper information on the arraignment hearing on July 25. Now it only says:

He was charged with acts of terrorism under the criminal law and ordered held for eight weeks—the first four in solitary confinement—pending further court proceedings.

Somewhat absurdly, it doesn't even say when this order was issued. See topic no 37 above, which includes a link to the original court ruling in Norwegian.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Present wording:

On 25 July 2011, Breivik was charged with "destabilizing or destroying basic functions of society" and "creating serious fear in the population",[21] acts of terrorism under the criminal law, and ordered held for eight weeks — the first four in solitary confinement — pending further court proceedings.[10]

Date added and other improvements made—good!

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I.P. problems

One of the probems with I.P. editors is that they often swtich entire sentences around without regard for citations. Hence we add up with misplaced refs. Its too time consuming to re-read all the refs to see whether they add up, so i am often tempted to revert a long list of editors wholesale. Pass a Method talk 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You should not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is he really insane?

WP:NOTFORUM causa sui (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At least two lines describe Breivik as being insane. He was able to combine chemicals successfully to form a bomb. He was able to write in satrisfactory manner and knows how to use video editing software. He was ble to infiltrate many secured locations. I think we should remove the claim he is insane. Do you agree? Pass a Method talk 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) No being insane does not stop you doing any of these things (and I am not sure that many of them are true, for a start he seems to have failed repeatedly in business), I also assume you mean Combine Chemicals?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC) This was in reply to a comment that has been refactored.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Whether he is insane or not is irrelevant to this talk page, per WP:NOTFORUM. What matters is what the sources say. They state that this may be used in his defence, which is clearly relevant, but we can only report what others say on the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Is there any sources saying he was an engineer?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC) the chief of the norwegian Police Security Service don't think that he's insane [[4]].-- mustihussain (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I'm unaware of any sources that claim he was an engineer and the article doesn't claim that he was either. - JRheic (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC) @Slatersteven It said so in the norwegian or danish wikipedia yesterday. can't remember. They removed it now. Pass a Method talk 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC) So it's an unsourced claim, can we also stop refactoring posts as it makes it very hard to follow?Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC) He's not insane until declared legally to be so. A psychiatrist interviewed by Dagbladet doesn't believe he'll be declared insane.[5] JonFlaune (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) And we are not saying he is insane, we are saying that his lawyer (and others) have said he is insane.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, and that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. JonFlaune (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. He is evil and not insane. And the 'insanity defense' by his lawyer will be understood for what it is by WP readers. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC) There are all kinds of definitions for insanity, and clearly we're not in a position to diagnose (not even if he logged into the Science Refdesk and asked us). But just for purposes of discussion, insanity in the U.S. has sometimes been defined as an inability to tell right from wrong. Breivik's disclaimer that his account of his preparation was just a work of fiction, his concealment of his activities, statements about "risk of apprehension" and "I believe this will be my last entry" - they might be of relevance. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) He kew that what he did was wrong and acknowledged it to police. But someone with such extensive knowledge of European history can't be insane. he knew exactly what he was doing. Pass a Method talk 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC) He himself said it was “gruesome but necessary” to save us from Jihad and immigration. Similar to those who kill to bring the Twelfth Imam, he wanted to bring on the pushback by killing. Sanely, he was critical of leaders in Norway who press for a new Palestinian state, specifically: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder

One Norwegian professor of clinical psychology, Svenn Torgersen, has considered, based on what he has read, that Breivik had an "extreme narcissistic personality disorder".[6] machine trans. I think this is important to include in the article, and that this is more important when discussing how he could committ the massacre, rather than speculating too much on his ambiguous synthesized "political ideology". – Bellatores (t.) 15:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindoo

There have been repeated attempts top claim that Breivik is a practising Hindoo. Only one source seems to support this http://www.todaysviews.com/2011/07/26/anders-breivik-hindu-terror-in-norway and I am not sure this is RS (I have raised the issue on RSN). Should we exclude this until either this source is found R$S or better sources are found to support the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is total bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is just another nonsense claim by an unreliable source. Prolog (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is well written and is 100% true so it should be added...He may not be a practicing Hindu but someone influenced by Hindutva and the sources claim that and that sentence cannot be deleted --Johnmylove (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'source' is nothing but some random website pushing an anti-Hindu agenda. Stop wasting everyone's time with garbage like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And it is the only source you provided that contains that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this source is actually very interesting and perceptive. Using it to claim Breivik was a practicing Hindu is absurd, of course - it's a rhetorical statement, and I don't think the author pretends otherwise. But the author pulls together everything Breivik did to commend Hindus for being (on the occasions he noted) anti-Muslim, and points out how far his rhetoric went to invite Hindus, Jews, and atheists into his big happy family. This is a crucial point, because it shows that his motivation is anti Muslim, not pro Christian. The article is not a source of fact, of course - the manifesto is - but it's a source of synthesis that Wikipedians aren't allowed to make themselves. Wnt (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think many would suggest those are mutually exclusive motivations, whichever one/s he subscribes to. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalism

What about his support for hindu nationalism:

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Norway-killer-Breiviks-common-cause-with-Hindu-nationalists/822839/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.246.122 (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/norwegian-killers-manifesto-supports-hindutva/170496-3.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.246.122 (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

this should be included..how can they not provide this content when this was part of his work? --Johnmylove (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added these references and pulled out a sentence in the lead. I think it's important - in the cause of peace here and elsewhere - to recognize that Breivik expressed strong praise for several different religions he perceived as anti-Islamic. We don't actually need to make this a place to debate Palestine, Kosovo, and Kashmir - everyone on all sides should be able to recognize that he eagerly pushed himself by the side of anyone he saw as fighting Muslims. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it took someone a grand total of 6 minutes to revert my edit in its entirety, citing "ongoing discussion". [7] Funny how they're never so fast to actually do that discussion... Wnt (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Zionism Cathegory

I know he is said to have "far-right Zionists" attitudes but is this enough for being in the "Zionists" Category? What are the sources for such claim? One issue is that he was a sympathizer of Israel, but Zionist? Should everybody who supports Israel be in that Category, all politicians, actors, musicians etc who support Israel? 88.102.95.151 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the Zionism category should be removed. On the other hand, as long as he's included in "Christian terrorism" and "Neo-fascist terrorism" (which is quite strange as sources describe him as anti-fascist with Churchill and Max Manus as his main idols -- like other neoconservatives, he sees Islam, the left and the fascists as his main enemies, and claims they are equally evil), he should be included in "Zionist terrorism", or all of these categories should be removed. JonFlaune (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; I removed that category -- some of the others should by probably removed too.. 88.102.95.151 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Cultural marxism"

The lead includes a link to Cultural Marxism, but when Breivik used that term, he used it in a very different sense than the description in the article, i.e. as a term for the left in general (or possibly anything to the left of his own far-right stance). JonFlaune (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The word cultural marxism is used as a code word within the anti-muslim-immigration movement. It doesn't have anything to do with any real marxism, it's more of a strawman ideology that denotes any liberal or socialist pro immigration and pro multi cultural stance, with the added conspiracy twang of the CMs wanting to eradicate the european christian civilization. Someone should write an article about it, it's quite widely used. 79.136.23.59 (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Zionism gone from lead?

At this moment, Zionist has been removed from his political details in the lead. Yesterday we agreed it needs to be there, and has been established to be true. Someone keeps removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableCoaster (talk • contribs) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed a compromise that removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the suggested compromise, we were to include the following quote in the introduction instead: "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement" (source: The Australian, see above). However, I also think the introduction that has been relatively stable for the last few days[8] is well written and balanced. JonFlaune (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is currently against zionism being in the lead. If there are more votes than it could be reinstated Pass a Method talk 16:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes do not trump policy.16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What policy? The lead should have all his relevant ideologies listed. Zionist is one of them. Why is it being treated differently than "Serbian paramilitarism" or anti-Marxism? They're all equally not connected with shooting Norwegian 16 year olds, so if we're including some of the allegiances, you should include ALL of them. That would be balanced... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableCoaster (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik describes himself as a "Justiciar Knight of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon" (p. 802) of his text, and advises people not to "tell any potential NS [i.e. National Socialist] that you are pro-Israel etc. as he might view you as a hostile". Support for Israel is not identical to Zionism, as people support Israel for different reasons. The reference to the Temple of Solomon also does not imply support for Zionism. While Breiviks text is admissible here as a self-published source about himself, we cannot make interpretations of that text. Breivik rather is a Judeo-Christian fundamentalist than a Christian fundamentalist, and there is of course the possibility that reliable sources will characterize his political ideas as Zionist (which may well be correct). We will have to wait for more reliable sources, including books, scholarly articles, etc., which may not be available for some time.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no votes, no one is voting and no one can count votes. It's important to avoid misusing the term "consensus". Issues raised must be "legitimate concerns". That means comments like "The more we learn about him the more serious his mental illness seems. I'm not sure if we can designate someone with serious mental illness as having an ideology" can be ignored straightaway since it has nothing to do with how wikipedia works and nothing to do with consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note that he has not been declared legally insane (and judging by comments from Norwegian psychiatrists, he is unlikely to be). JonFlaune (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of new readers, some of the sources cited here (and some new ones) which demonstrate that what the Jerusalem Post calls "far right Zionism" is one of a handful of core ideological influences, both according to Breivik's manifesto and according to numerous reliable sources:

1. First, as he states in his manifesto, this is a core idea of his,

   "I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now). Islam must be re-classified as a political ideology and the Quran and the Hadith banned as the genocidal political tools they are" (p. 650)

   "A modern cultural conservative (nationalist), anti-Jihad right wing alternative is emerging in Western Europe. A majority of Western European right wing groups are all anti-Islamisation and pro-Israel" (p. 1400)

2. Now, is this significant? Yes, according to the Financial Times, where an article[9] discusses the rise of "a new type of right-wing extremism" which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam, and asserts that the killer personifies this type of extremism.
3. Also the Huffington Post points out:

   "Today, Europe faces a new threat. The pan-European anti-Muslim movement includes leading individuals who embrace "Judeo-Christian values" and express their undying support for Israel instead of the anti-Semitism that is so central to the neo-Nazi movement."[10]

4. And as Israel National News notes,

   "Breivik called himself a strong supporter of Zionism, praised Theodor Herzl the founder of Zionism, and attacked the European political establishment because he saw it as being anti-Israel"[11]

5. Der Spiegel describes the movement he is part of as:

   "pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel -- but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist"[12]

6. Also Deutsche Welle has an article on "Islamhasser und Israelfreunde"[13]
7. Götz Aly commenting in Deutschlandradio:

   "He stands up against all those who support the Palestinian claims against Israel, whether they are Palestinians, Germans, left or right-wing radicals; no matter: He supports Israel. He sees himself as a Christian fundamentalist. He finds his [ideological] roots mostly in radical Christian fundamentalism in the US."[14]

8. Like the European anti-muslim pro-Israeli far-right, and the far right in Israel itself, Breivik of course is critical of "leftwing Jews". As the Jerusalem Post points out, he states that:

   "Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us [...] So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists"[15]

9. The Jerusalem Post concludes that he

   "lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"[16]

10. The Australian sums it all up:

    "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement."[17]

Additional sources which have been cited:

1. Wiener Zeitung describes him as

   "a pro-Israeli right-wing extremist, who admires Churchill and a Norwegian anti-Nazi resistance fighter, a Christian Knight Templar and fighter against Islam, who is also a Freemason"[18]

2. Christopher Hitchens notes that Breivik has

   "declared himself a passionate pro-Zionist as well as a sworn foe of all sorts of Islamization"[19]

3. Dagbladet Information notes that Breivik's worldview

   "is anti-Muslim and anti-elitist, and its adherents support the state of Israel on the assumption that the country is a last bastion against Islamism."[20]

4. Sydsvenskan notes that Breivik describes himself as

   "a sworn opponent of Islam, racism and Marxism, and a strong supporter of Christianity, cultural conservatism and Israel."[21]

5. Tony Karon in TIME: Norway Terror Accused Breivik on 'the Jewish Question'
6. Tony Karon, this time in The National (Abu Dhabi)[22]

   "Breivik doesn't like all Jews, of course; he only likes Zionists, who he sees as an essential ally in his global struggle."

7. Al Jazeera describes him as

   "virulently anti-Muslim and pro-Israel"[23]

8. Massimo Introvigne writes that:

   "If Islam is Breivik’a archenemy, Judaism – or, rather, a quite imaginary Judaism, represented as a force mainly devoted to fight Islam – is depicted as a main friend and resource. Breivik is fanatically pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. He believes that the Jews are the most noble and brave Westerners. As a consequence, he hates Hitler."[24]

9. Robert Sibley of the Ottawa Citizen quotes psychologist Kevin MacDonald, who describes his ideology as

   "cultural conservative, very opposed to ethnocentrism as a strategy, very positive about the Vienna School, staunchly pro-Israel (which he sees as beset by militant Islam), and very hostile toward Islam."[25]

10. Klassekampen writes in an article on Breivik's ideology:

    "A British anti-immigration protest movement, an anti-Islam Pan-European blog, and conservative Zionists, were among Breivik's main inspirations".[26]

11. Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review writes that

    "Norway’s Christian terrorist, Anders Breivik, also adhered to the Vienna school of thought and his views are shockingly similar to Wilders’. Breivik’s over 1,500 pages-long manifest encompasses the urge to purify Christian Europe from Islam and calls for support for Israel. In essence, the manifest reads as a violent adaptation of the Freedom Party’s program."[27]

12. Die Zeit quotes Norwegian terrorism expert Helge Lurås, who says:

    "He sees Israel as allies in the war against Islam. [...] He sees the cultural element of Christianity as a fundamental part of the European identity."[28]

13. The Helsinki Times notes that

    "He declares himself to be an anti-Islamic, pro-Israel, conservative Christian"[29]

14. Die Presse notes that "the Israel connection" is found throughout the "second book."[30]

A few other sources were also mentioned

• http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/07/norway-massacre-and-nexus-of.html
• http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=244892

Criticism/response from Jewish/Israeli groups:

1. "Whatever 'support' for Israel Anders Behring Breivik may have had in his abominable mind, it is not any kind of support we want", as the JTA reports[31]
2. Abraham Foxman warns against "anti-Muslim Israel lovers", as the JTA reports[32]
3. In an op-ed in Ynet News, Raphael Mimoun writes

   "Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed at least 76 people in Norway on Friday, described himself as being "pro-Zionism" and "pro-Israeli nationalism." This is not a coincidence."

   He concludes that

   "Israeli leaders should be careful about forming alliances with Europe's far Right racists"[33]

4. The Jewish Journal writes that Breivik is

   "a self-proclaimed Zionist, someone whose 1,300-page online manifesto praises Israel, the Jews, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and even Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism"

   and that

   "this 32-year-old man has redefined the stereotype of the European right-wing fundamentalist"[34]

5. The JTA notes that Breivik's

   "proto-Zionist viewpoint is shared by a number of far-right leaders around Europe"[35]

6. In an essay in Ynet, Ziv Lenchner writes that many right-wing Israelis express support for Breivik, arguing that "the overwhelming response is schadenfreude"[36]
7. Dagbladet Information on right-wing Israelis expressing support for Breivik;

   "It is not compassion for the victims of the terrorist attacks in Oslo that dominates the public debate in Israel: 'They hate Israel, so they have asked for it', a reader of Ynet writes" (lead)[37]

8. Tom Segev in Haaretz:

   "One could not ignore the fact that many Israelis did not entirely dismiss the Norwegian murderer's affinity for Israel."[38]

9. The Jewish Weekly notes that

   "Breivik’s extreme nationalistic beliefs are documented in a 1,500-page manifesto. Among other things, those beliefs seem to incorporate a loathing of Islam and admiration for Israel"

   pointing out

   "the day before the killings, the teens on Utoya Island had gathered for a workshop on promoting BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel)."

   and

   "It should be crystal clear that the Israel in Breivik’s diseased mind, which he sees as some sort of bulwark against multiculturalism, is not the real Israel"[39]

10. In an insightful article in The Washington Post, Abraham Foxman notes that[40]

    "One bizarre twist to Breivik’s warped worldview was his pro-Zionism—his strongly expressed support for the state of Israel"

    Foxman also points out that Breivik's belief system is shared by bloggers such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, "who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam," and writes that this ideology "parallels the creation of an ideological—and far more deadly—form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

Many other sources can be found.

The current introduction describes his ideology in this way:

Breivik's far-right militant ideology is described in an online manifesto 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, posted by Breivik on the day of the attacks under the anglicised pseudonym Andrew Berwick. His ultranationalist manifesto lays out his worldview, which includes support for varying degrees of cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, anti-Islamization, "far-right Zionism", and Serbian paramilitarism. It argues for the violent annihilation of Islam, "cultural Marxism", and multiculturalism, to preserve a Christian Europe.

This is well written, balanced and consistent with numerous reliable sources (e.g., The Australian, the Jerusalem Post, Der Spiegel, the Financial Times) that sum up the most important aspects of his ideology. If we mention his support for Serbian nationalism (only one source; eurasiareview.com), we certainly need to mention the much better sourced support for Zionism, which also appears more significant, again according to numerous sources such as the ones just mentioned. JonFlaune (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for collecting these sources! Not all of them are reliable sources, per WP:RS, but some are, and take together, they provide a strong indication that one aspect of Breivik's political ideology can be described as "right-wing Zionism". I would therefore not object to the inclusion of the term in the lead, and I would support to include it in the article's body. Apart from this, I would prefer to get rid of the quotation marks in the lead. Instead of "right-Zionism" in quotation marks, we could write "a right-wing interpretation of Zionism" without quotation marks, and it would be better to write "opposed to liberal and emancipatory cultural movements and developments, which he refers to as "cultural Marxism"", as we should not use Breivik's own words (or notions derived from his own ideological belief system) to describe his ideology (in analogy to WP:INUNIVERSE).  Cs32en Talk to me  20:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to "right-wing interpretation of Zionism", but maybe it would be a better idea to discuss how his interpretation of Zionism is different from mainstream Zionism in more detail in the body of the article, also mentioning some of the criticism of this description from Jewish groups. "far-right Zionism" from the current introduction is a direct quote from The Jerusalem Post, hence the quotation marks. JonFlaune (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post (hardly a biased source against Zionism) titled an entire article around the fact that he supports "far-right Zionism", not the regular kind. That is why it should be in the lead - so readers will understand that he does not support mainstream Zionism.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel is front and centre in Breivik's ideology and worldview. For instance, he expresses great admiration for both legalized and practical racism in Israel against non-Jews, who are mainly Arab Muslims. I don't why it is not mentioned in the first few lines, unless there is an organized effort on wikipedia to dissassociate him from Israel and Zionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timretbn (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Front and center? His support for Jewish nationalism comes under a much larger world view. It doesn't take front and center at all.

A caution against WP:SYN

Hold up a minute here. The issue isn't whether we can find a number of sources that mention something about Israel in connection with Breivik. I'm sure you can find an endless number of them if you went looking. The issue is one of weight. For instance, of the sources quoted above, only the Jerusalem Post emphasises this aspect; the other sources are considerably more vague. This is exactly what one would expect: the purpose of the Jerusalem Post, its job, is to focus on Israeli aspects of an issue (that's not an accusation of bias any more than saying the Financial Times is focussed on financial affairs), so it's entirely expected that they would focus on that one detail. To start from there and then find supporting quotes from other sources is actually synthesis in practical effect. The way to approach it is to go to the other sources to find out what they emphasise, and then to pick bits from the Jerusalem Post or other sources for details that are too specific for the general sources to cover.
Every special interest or narrowly scoped publication in the world is going to cherry-pick the one or few aspects of this whole event that is of particular interest to them and their readership, and then focus disproportionately on that one aspect. We need to be extremely careful that we don't use these as a starting point and elaborate from there.
And as best I can tell, Breivik wasn't so much pro- anything in particular, as much as he was anti-Islam (or Islamist if we're quoting him); and almost literally any enemy of his enemy was his “friend”.
PS. This is in a sub-thread to emphasise that it's not directed at any one editor in the above discussion; not intended in response to any single post above; and not intended to argue in favour or against any one position in the thread. I use the argument for inclusion as an example because that's what would trigger concerns about synthesis, not necessarily because I am against inclusion here. The short version is “be very carefull”, nothing more. --Xover (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the entire summary above? In an article on "Breivik's web of ideology", Klassekampen writes that "conservative Zionists" are among his "main inspirations". Summing up his ideology, The Australian writes that "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement." The Financial Times, Der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle and others discuss the rise of "a new type of right-wing extremism" which is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam. In contrast, only one source supports "Serbian paramilitarism" being a central idea. Breivik's far-right pro-Israeli stance has been widely reported on also outside Israel. I don't think this article contains any other fact where there are so many sources demonstrating it to be significant. JonFlaune (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the Serbian paramilitarism needs to be removed from the lede, looking at about thirty major media outlets I also see only one our of 34 that even mentions it. 72.75.44.109 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read his writing? Among other things, he warns you not to let nationalists know you are pro israel when you buy weapons from them.... His Pro-Zionist views are clearly, and repeatedly stated by him in his manifesto, and have been repeatedly reported in mainstream news outlets. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-feminism?

The point was raised in the July 27 Democracy Now! broadcast that anti-feminism is a major ingredient in Breivik's ideology as described in his manifesto. Do you think that Breivik's anti-feminism should be mentioned?

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is part of his ideology, but a major part? I don't think so. I definitely don't think it's significant enough to put in the lead of the article. The "Politics" section has two subheadings so far "Anti-Islam" and "PCCTS, "Knights Templar" order". There should probably also be an "Other beliefs" section to cover other beliefs of Breivik's that he put less emphasis upon, including anti-feminism. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One reference, Michelle Goldberg:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/24/norway-massacre-anders-breivik-s-deadly-attack-fueled-by-hatred-of-women.html

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/27/breivik-anti-feminism?CMP=twt_gu

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian citizen

Resolved

per this edit  Cs32en Talk to me  03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik is primarily known for being the self-professed perpetrator of the attacks, not for being a Norwegian citizen. Therefore, the lead should read "Anders Behring Breivik is the self-professed perpetrator ... He is a Norwegian citizen ..."  Cs32en Talk to me  01:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead is currently in great shape

Hi, just looked at the lead and it is in the best shape I have seen for several days. It is succinct, uncluttered from excessive references and not argumentative. Let's hope we all continue to work together to develop a good article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Which version are you referring to? The lead was briefly drastically altered by a user (who also deleted large parts of the article) with no discussion or justification, but he was quickly reverted by others. The introduction that has been relatively stable for the last few days[41] is indeed very well written, succinct and addresses the most important topics. The introduction following the massive text deletion (until it was reverted after a few minutes) was very badly written and failed to include even the most essential information, e.g. it described his ideology only vaguely as "far-right militant" (which could be any right-wing ideology) and failed to even mention his hatred of Muslims/Islam, which is generally agreed upon to be the most central aspect of his ideology. JonFlaune (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that the lead remain true to WP:MOSINTRO. Intensive referencing should not be necessary in the lead, as all relevant points will have been covered in the body of the article where detailed citations are necessary. The lead should draw in the reader and entice them to read on. I currently see almost 30 references in the lead, which is hardly welcoming to the casual reader. It's beyond me why we need five references to confirm one sentence! WWGB (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

lede issue

Someone insist on this first paragraph for the lede:

Anders Behring Breivik (Norwegian pronunciation: ['ɑnəʂ 'beːɾiŋ 'bɾæɪʋiːk]; born 13 February 1979) is a Norwegian right-wing extremist and the confessed perpetrator of the July 22, 2011 Norway attacks, with 172 victims of whom 76 died. The terrorist attacks included detonating a car bomb in downtown Oslo, Norway, near the offices of the Prime Minister, killing eight and wounding 26. This was followed by a mass shooting on the nearby island of Utøya, where he attacked teenagers attending a Norwegian Labour Party youth camp, killing 68 and wounding 66.

I insist this version is better:

Anders Behring Breivik (Norwegian pronunciation: ['ɑnəʂ 'beːɾiŋ 'bɾæɪʋiːk]; born 13 February 1979) is a Norwegian right-wing extremist and the confessed perpetrator of the July 22, 2011 Norway attacks, with 172 victims of whom 76 died.

The primary reason is that the deleted sentence goes into details already well covered in the article about the attack, which is already wikilinked, and further more, only editorializes the succinct information already given in the first sentence. This article is about the perpetrator, not the attacks, and a lede is an introduction to the subject of the article. It defies logic, writing style, and even quality to insist in duplicating information and add length to what could be succinct and easy to read.--Cerejota (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The first description is too long, and the second one is too short. My suggestion:

Anders Behring Breivik (Norwegian pronunciation: ['ɑnəʂ 'beːɾiŋ 'bɾæɪʋiːk]; born 13 February 1979) is a Norwegian right-wing extremist. He has confessed to have perpetrated a sequence of two terrorist attacks in Norway in 2011. In the attacks, a bombing in Oslo and a killing spree in a youth camp in Utøya, Norway, he killed 76 people.

We don't need sources for the attacks here, as the article 2011 Norway attacks, as well as this article's body, contain all necessary sources.

  Cs32en Talk to me  05:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that a casual reader should not have to flip to another article to learn what Breivik did. Did he launch a chemical attack? Did he unleash a swarm of deadly snakes? The current article is entirely silent on this important matter. I understand that this is not the article about the attack, but it should at least be acknowledged what he did, that is, bombings and shootings. (PS I am happy with the Cs32en suggestion.) WWGB (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That is why we build the web and include the link to the 2011 Norway attacks page. This invites the reader to satiate their curiosity in the appropriate article. Yes, if they want to find out if he screamed "Snakes on the motherfucking Plane" they go to the article. I do not want a casual reader to think they got all the information they needed to get from this article. I like Cs32en suggestion, with the caveat that I strongly feel we should avoid descriptors with emotional charge such as "terrorism" in an encyclopedia article - but that is indeed a different discussion. Since my 3RR with you WWGB is over in that sense, I am inserting Cs32en's version, and opening the discussion on "terrorist" later on.--Cerejota (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the wounded, which were in the original and my version, but not on Cs32en. --Cerejota (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversy about lede content

A recent edit describes Breivik's text as "ultranationalist" and restored in-universe descriptions of "anti-Islamization" and "cultural Marxism". Breivik's text is not ultranationalist, he is a self-proclaimed adherent of a non-nationalist Christian military order (which may or may exist outside of Breivik's mind). He is not a warrior against Islamization, although he likes to present himself in this way, but an islamophobic extremist. By describing this as "anti-Islamization", we would imply that Islamization would exist as a factual phenomenon. Furthermore, Breivik says that he fights against "cultural Marxism", but the ideas, institutions, and social developments that he pretends to attack are not described as Marxist, nor do these people (i.e. the Norwegian social democrats) see themselves as Cultural Marxist.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Cs32, without WP:reliable sources (per WP:Verify) then your theory (although probably correct) is WP:OR and inadmissible. You need to locate sources that discuss his view of "cultural Marxism", "Christian warrior-ism" etc. As for Islamaphobia, there is little doubt that he suffers from this unfortunate affliction - but he also presents himself as battling Islamization and many of the sources take note of this.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the issue. There are reliable sources that describe something as being X, we should attribute and sustain this. Reliable sources agree, verifiably on a series of facts a Breivik's beliefs, and about his manifesto. We should report that, and we do.

However, in general, I have a problem with using adjectives in the encyclopedic voices. We are not a newspaper, even when newspaper are our sources, and we shouldn't speak like one. SO I am not entirely sure we should, for example, describe the manifesto as "ultra-nationalist", in part because very few sources have done that, and in part because we can just say "The manifesto says..." without having to patronize our readers and spoon feeding them descriptions, in particular ones that stretch NPOV. Just because no one will take Breivik's side does it mean we all of the sudden suspend NPOV. Its a WP:5P policy, not even WP:IAR applies to NPOV. Sources, generally, are not NPOV, but we are. So we do not parrot sources, we adapt sources. --Cerejota (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One source says, for example, that Breivik says he wants to save Europe and Norway "from a multiculturalism that he calls cultural Marxism" [42]. There may be more sources on this, of course. Most sources do not use any adjectives when referring to the "manifesto", and those that do sometimes characterize it as "rambling", "hate-filled" etc. A few use the term "ultra-nationalists", but these are too few to justify using the term here, as a general description of that text.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

History of terrorism and revolution

He is also an anti-bureaucrat, because by "manifesto" the EU was tyranny of bureaucracy, as the USSR (Marxism). So we can conclude that he terrorists whose ideals are the struggle for freedom against tyranny of bureaucracy. During the Cold War existed are more numerous nationalist terrorist organization from East European countries against communist tyranny and bureaucracy whose aim was the liberation of their countries of the Communist bureaucrats. They commited terror against civilians. It is possible that he the terrorists on that type, so you should write in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.26.191 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not possible. Your proposition is completely original research based on speculation about information contained in a primary source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the Manifesto to the 2083 a mother Europe expects the Great Anti-bureaucratic revolution led by conservatives, similar to this Anti-bureaucratic revolution.

You need RS drawing that conclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

New death total [July 25 to July 28]

Police press conference, reported now:

Utøya — at least 68.

Oslo — at least 8.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=461572

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the link doesn't work.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/dodstalen-justeras-ned

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/25/norway.terror.attacks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Added a clarification to the heading.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone has edited the heading. I am happier with the new wording, and I was considering to change the heading myself. However, please don't change material written by another editor without clearly saying so in a post.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From http://www.theblaze.com/stories/oslo-shooters-lawyer-i-think-my-client-is-insane/
"Earlier, Norway’s justice minister told reporters Tuesday that employees from his department are still missing. Police plan to start publicly naming the dead for the first time Tuesday."

"There is a particular focus on identifying the dead since authorities dramatically lowered the death toll Monday, apparently because they counted 18 bodies twice in the confusion following the massacre. They initially said 86 people died on the island, but now say the figure is 68."
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) . . . And 93 - 18 = 75, right?

Numerous news articles today say 76 were killed, and WP article, 2011_Norway_attacks, notes 8 in Oslo and 68 on the island—which adds correctly to 76.. . . . Names were promised for yesterday, but only four names were given. Today, Wednesday, 13 more. It is good to release the names slowly, for reverence and respect. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8666575/Norway-attacks-police-release-names-of-13-more-victims.html . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of 21 youth, names released July 28, 2011: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/188700/20110728/anders-behring-breivik-massacre-victims.htm and in addition list 42 names released. There is other good information at this online news outlet, somewhat liberally biased. They reference the BBC info from Oslo police, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14276074 which shows the portrait-photos of the eight victims in Oslo; and names with some portrait-photos for 69 island victims. 8 + 69 = 77 innocents. A favorite picture for remembrance is Margrethe Boeyum Kloeven, age 16. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias in writing about ABB's religious beliefs

Thus far, the discussion of ABB's religious beliefs has focused solely on his writings about cultural Christianity, and his claims about being a "moderately religious" person. This is correct and should be included in the article. But, it is false to portray him as only a cultural Christian as the article currently does.

Further on in the manifesto (starting on pg. 1327), he speaks much more fervently about his religious beliefs, even describing himself as a "soldier of Jesus Christ." He talks about how God has anointed him (and others like him) "to go into battle" (pg. 1330) and how God will provide him with a "protective shield." (pg. 1331)

He quotes extensively from the Bible in this section, citing "battle verses" for support (pg. 1329).

If we are to include the passages about his view of cultural Christianity, it seems rather biased and unbalanced to then just ignore the passages in which he talks much more personally and fervently about his religious beliefs.

Also, in the religion section, there have been included two opinion pieces from Christian religious affairs writers, again, portraying him exclusively as a "cultural Christian." There have been other such opinion pieces in which he is described as having a much stronger religious identity than that. But, these have not been included. Lklusener (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So why don't you include them, making sure to back them up with references to reliable sources? Greenshed (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A source that explains the religiosity of Breivik is the blog of A.J. Deus, a researcher in religious terrorism http://greatleapfraud.wordpress.com/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni.R.Hume (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue LOW weight given to his opinions about Israel in the article

User:JonFlaune has meticulously assembled a host of sources each of which stress the relevance of Breivik's pro-Israel stance as part of his ideology.

Obviously, there are strong and relentless efforts to downplay this aspect, seeing as mention of it is currently entirely absent from the lead and buried far down in the article.

Instead, the lead contains mention --based on a single source, no less-- that Commentators in Norway have also emphasized that it would be "incorrect" to label him as a "fundamentalist Christian", also relativizing his fundamental Christian views, using Breivik's self-description as "moderately religious" which flies in the face of his characterization in virtually all available reliable sources.

Here is a permlink to JonFlaune's sources.

To accurately reflect the sum total of available reliable sources, we need to mention Breivik's pro-Israel stance in the article lead.

We also need to remove POV attempts at downplaying the perpetrator's Christian fundamentalism.

And finally, we may need to start article-banning users who are, with whatever motivation, trying to remove this article from being a faithful summary of the sum total of available sources. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The events in and around Oslo are far too WP:RECENT to begin assigning motivations such as political or religious ideology. Further, there are far too many conflicting sources that can be used to argue either for or against including such motivations in the article. I would recommend waiting a week or so, as a minimum, to allow a predominant profile to emerge, instead of yelling "everyone pick a bandwagon and jump on!". Let's take the time to do it right instead of having to take the time to do it over. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of your objections are applicable.

For one, nobody suggests that we assign anything. Also, on the point of his pro-Israel stance, virtually all of the available sources are in agreement -- and it's never too soon to accurately summarize what the available sources contain.

Let's take the time to do it right -- You don't appear to voice any objection regarding the fact that we, apparently, didn't take time to get it wrong.

Again, none of your objections apply, at all and obviously so. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been edits to the religion section declaring him to not be a Christian on the basis of a blog piece in the CommentIsFree section of the Guardian website. There are many threads that need to unraveled, objectively and fairly, in describing his religious beliefs. One the one hand, he considers himself to be "moderately religious" and writes at length about cultural Christianity. He also writes that he is not in favor of a Christian theocracy. But, further in the manifesto (starting on pg. 1327), he writes about his religious beliefs in much more personal and fervent terms. He states that he has been "called" and "anointed" with the power of God to be a "soldier of Jesus Christ." He also quotes "battle verses" from the Bible, claiming them as support. The article makes no mention of these passages, but rather only focuses on his writings about cultural Christianity.

We need to take a more nuanced approach in detailing his religious beliefs, rather than alternate between the extremes - that he is not a Christian at all, on the one hand, and that he is only driven by religion, on the other. Lklusener (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so, and thank you for pointing that out. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote The Truth, no matter whose version of The Truth is in question. Wikipedia functions on verifiability. And there just isn't enough verifiable information to either include a pro-Israel stance...or exclude it. Not yet, anyway. Watch, and learn. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote The Truth -- Incidentally, you are the one who appears to ignore WP:V.

And there just isn't enough verifiable information to either include a pro-Israel stance -- This merely reveals that you didn't look at the sources JonFlaune assembled.

Watch, and learn. -- There is not need to be snide or condescending. I have made a lot more edits to Wikipedia than you. Moreover, I'm starting to understand why your recent RfA failed due to a lack of in-depth policy knowledge.

In all, you're quoting policy that agrees with "my" side of the argument, not with yours. And I would appreciate it very much if you didn't ignore the arguments I'm providing. Thank you. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that it has any bearing on the discussion at hand, but I don't suppose you'd be willing to log in and reveal your actual username, would you? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an account. But thanks for assuming good faith and responding to my arguments. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lklusener, I don't see where I may have advocated that we take an "extreme" approach. What I do suggest is that we respect WP:V and make a neutral and intellectualy honest effort to accurately summarize the available reliable sources, with particular regard to his ideology, which appears to be the subject of POV editing. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: Is Breivik's belief really pro-Israel? I get the impression that he's thinking of himself as a Crusader and Israel as a Crusader state - that he might support the idea of the Israeli government and power as an outpost against Islam but not necessarily be pro-Jewish... somehow I have a hard time picturing him being happy to find some neighborhood in Oslo with storefronts labelled up in Hebrew... am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Breivik's belief really pro-Israel? -- Verifiability, not truth. Therefore, the question that must be asked is: Has he been characterized as pro-Israel in the overwhelming majority of available sources? --78.35.236.221 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but it doesn't hurt to try to figure out the truth to help figure out what verifiable facts might be found. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/07/24/3088679/norway-killer-espoused-new-right-wing-pro-israel-philosophy "The confessed perpetrator in the attack in Norway that killed at least 76 people espoused a right-wing philosophy against Islam that also purports to be pro-Zionist." its the global jewish news agency. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=230762 "

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who killed nearly 100 people in a combined terror attack Friday that included car bombings in Oslo and a shooting rampage at an island summer camp, held fiercely anti-Islamic and pro-Israel views, according to a 1,500 page manifesto he uploaded before his killing spree Friday." its the jerusalem post. Satisfied?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are so many thousands of sources, how do we know what's the correct weight. Do most articles devote no sentences, 1 sentence, a paragraph, etc. to this info? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great stance. So you're saying that we shouldn't even bother trying to evaluate the sources? Pray tell, what are you doing on an encyclopedic project? --78.35.236.221 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

10% (500,000) of google search results for "Anders Behring Breivik " include israel. Here's annother rs http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/07/norway-massacre-and-nexus-of.html - "The Norway Massacre and the nexus of Islamophobia and Right-wing Zionism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If 10% mention Israel, the something less than 10% of this article should discuss it, since I doubt each of those articles are entirely about it. If 5% or each of those articles is about Israel (just guessing), then we should devote 0.5% of our article to it. Probably not enough to go in the lead, but 1 sentence for every 200 other sentences we write. Again, this is just a general rule, and I don't know what the real numbers are. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, out of this article's 2,700 words, maybe 2 are about his views on Israel/zionism. That's 0.07%, so it's not like this is given much weight at this time - even 5% of the article would be an enormous increase. I think using percentages like that is meaningless anyway and 5% would probably be too excessive -- even if 5% of the sources mentioned this. In any event, the majority of the sources out there do not deal specifically with his political views. What's important is whether reliable sources demonstrate that this is significant as far as his political position is concerned. As I demonstrated above, multiple high quality sources (and I've seen countless others and could easily expand the list, but I believe that would be unnecessary) demonstrate that his political beliefs consist of a handful of core ideas: Opposition to multiculturalism, Christian fundamentalism/extremism, Islamophobia and what the Jerusalem Post has called "far-right Zionism" and other sources call "undying support for Israel". Multiple sources sum all this up, for example an article in The Australian[43], stating: "Ideologically, Breivik has been characterised as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist. He was highly critical of Muslim immigration into Christian societies, he is pro-Israel and an admirer of the US Tea Party movement". Other very highly regarded sources, such as the Financial Times and Der Spiegel, assert that he personifies a (new) type of extremism which is is pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam, or, in the words of Der Spiegel, is "pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel -- but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist". Many sources discuss this special blend of extremism. The introduction already includes an unnecessary detailed selection of quotes from his manifesto on him being "moderately religious" and so forth. We could make the introduction more succinct by simply, instead, including one of the quotes that sum up his political position, e.g. the quote from The Australian. JonFlaune (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine and the IP address, your methodology is flawed. The number of google hits is meaningless. Most of those are probably just propagandists seeking to demonize Israel. What matters is how much weight reliable secondary sources are giving to this topic. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Our methodology is flawed? JonFlaune assembled reliable secondary sources. You by contrast simply and erroneously assert that (a) the reliable sources are "Google hits" (which means you didn't bother looking at the sources at all) and that (b) the sources are probably just propagandists seeking to demonize Israel. Whose methodology appears ever so slightly flawed here? --87.79.210.245 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Any support Breivik may have had for Israel seems rather irrelevant in this case. The cited motivation for the attack (according to the court's remand order) was hatred of muslims, multiculturalism, and the Labour Party which had betrayed the county by letting in muslims and other cultures. Nothing, and I mean nothing indicates that the attacks were motivated by pro-Israel sympathies, and this aspect of Breivik's political views has received virtually zero coverage in Norwegian media. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's received plenty of coverage in the media including the Israeli media so it is clearly relevant according to reliable sources and understandably so. Just look elsewhere on this talk page for examples. Also, this article is about the person rather than just the attacks. Admittedly, the term 'pro-Israel' ranges from the likes of J-Street 2 state solution advocacy to settler colonization of the Palestinian territories/Land of Israel, so it's a bit vague but that's not our fault, it's the term RS use. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think his pro-Israeli view should be mentioned, but in context. As Sjakkalle said: his prime "motivation" was his his hatred of Muslims and multi-culturalism. However, it is an interesting point that this group have split into two very distinct camps in Scandinavia (Europe?) in these last few years:

• one "traditional" more pro-nazi camp,
• and another extreme pro-Israeli camp.

Now, both camps are tiny, (but possibly bigger in Sweden than in Norway(?)). However, the two camps apparently absolutely detest each other, while fighting over organizations like the Norwegian Defence League. However, it has been noted that the second group (to which Breivik certainly belong) has been growing, especially after 9/11. In order to "place him" in this political landscape, we must also mention his pro-Israeli, pro-Zionis views (..but the primary focus should be, IMO, on his anti-Islamic, anti-muti-culturlalism.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, last time there was a major political killing in Norway, in 1981, the socalled Hadeland-murders, were 2 young guys were basically executed, -this was also done by the extreme right. But those people were in the other "old" extreme right, ie. closer to nazi-views. Huldra (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, your reasoning hinges on the erroneous assumption that this is the article about the attack. Therefore, invalid and inapplicable. Just noting. --87.79.210.245 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

2083: Chapter 2.72

Regarding chapter 2.72 of 2083, "Green is the new Red - Stop Enviro-Communism!" Breivik cites the incendiary rhetoric of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Fox News, and Alex Jones in support of ideas on climate change denial. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Since AGW is a hoax and a fraud, the comments of Christopher Monckton are not incendiary rhetoric. And in regards to Breivik, "Even if the Devil says, 'two plus two is four', I will believe it." . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts are funny things. Don't quit your day job. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving mistakes

I noticed the malformed archiving (brackets do not go at the end of the target pages), corrected it and reverted the most recent archiving until the next go round of the bot. However, the previous archiving here which may not be undone sent those 19 threads to never-never land as the target pages do not exist. Editors may recover the posts from the edit history and manually archive them into Archive 1.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, an older thread of 3 posts need archived from the edit history. That covers the only three occurrences of Miszabot that I see.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have recovered the 3 and 19 threads to archive 1 [44] (at the beginning although there was some manual archiving which happened inbetween so it probably didn't belong at the beginning but I was lazy to work out where it did belong). To help check I purposely saved my edit after cutting and pasting the 19 threads [45] which suggests I correctly cut everything. I also re-added the headers which were removed by the bot [46]. Edit: New link to my changes [47]. I moved the stuff archived after the manual archiving to the proper place. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Compression garment

The caption of the second image says that's what he's wearing, but when I read compression garment, it doesn't seem to apply. Is that the best way to describe what he's wearing? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

He's wearing a SKINS brand Chrome compression suit. Here's a descriptive piece and here is the specific Chrome version that he is wearing. It is like a spandex diveskin.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Breivik was, according to the sources, a member of the Church of Norway, which is Lutheran. He stated that he intended to attend a church service in a church belonging to the Church of Norway before the attack. There are no sources, to my knowledge, that state that he left the Church of Norway, converted to Roman Catholicism etc. Standard practice is to give the religion and the denomination, see Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, I suggest to write "Religion: Christian (Lutheran)".  Cs32en Talk to me  18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe in Norway, you are a member of the state church by default since birth, so it doesn't need to mean much in practice. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet there are indications that it actually meant something in practice for Breivik, and sources are supporting that interpretation.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored it to Church of Norway (Lutheran). Let's see how long it stays. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can someone have a look at this series of edits? I don't want to undo edits that have altered my own edits to the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's by a hypocritical Christian who has no problem with labelling people "Muslim terrorist" but can't handle it when it says "Christian terrorist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableCoaster (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. This was a request for technical help rather than for a discussion.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Knights Templar 1

I found this on Yahoo!: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/did-medieval-knights-templar-influence-norway-gunman-161312473.html

Some new Knights Templar organization claims his membership. He has a "mentor" in the group. The Knights Templar are Roman Catholic, thus he may be Roman Catholic, but he claims otherwise. Also, the Knights Templar (like common Catholics) don't encourage terrorism, so I'll look more in to it. TomUSA 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

He lived out his fantasy of being a Knight Templar. What does the year "2083" mean to him? (Paraphrasing from the following ref.) Breivik compares his killings to Crusaders and their protectors, Knights Templar— obsessed with battles between European nations and Islamic forces. He cites the three-month 1683 Battle of Vienna as the last decisive attempt to push Muslims out of Europe. 2083 is 400 years later and he want victory for his ideology by then. "By September 11th, 2083, the third wave of Jihad will have been repelled and the cultural Marxist/multi-culturalist hegemony in Western Europe will be shattered and lying in ruin, exactly 400 years after we won the battle of Vienna on September 11th, 1683. Europe will once again be governed by patriots." http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/187932/20110727/breivik-manifesto-2083-anders-behring-breivik-eurabia.htm . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Knights Templar 2

I made this edit, but someone reverted me. It is how he describes himself, and detectives have not ruled out the concept. Do you agree or disagree with the edit? Pass a Method talk 09:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, they were disbanded in 1314 (and he is not over 300 years old, nor was he born in the highlands of Scotland).He claims he belongs to a reformed Templer order (but as a Catholic order its hard to see how (as a protestant) he can have any real lineage.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Protestantism evolved from Catholicism. So he may see a lineage here. Apart from that, I agree that we must not report Breivik statements as facts.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But the Protestants faith evolved long after the dissolution of the Templers. So (and he does not claim as far as I am aware) there cannot be a direct liniage.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Mr. Wacko of the Fjords is not a reliable source on the matter and WP should not spread rumors. --Javaweb (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

There is a news report of an "Ancient Order of Knights Templar" with which Breivik was associated.^[48] Of course it is not the "real" Knights Templar, but then again, the Ku Klux Klan is not the original KKK either. This AOKN may gather enough sources in to be an article, or at least a section, but don't link from his article directly to the 13th-century group. Wnt (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We can (and the articel does) say he claims to be a member of such an organisation. We cannot claim (with out some good sources) that this organisation is the Knights Templer.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The alleged organisation he claims to be part of has nothing at all to do with the Knights Templar (an organisation dissolved in 1312). Detectives have certainly ruled out the "concept" that the Knights Templar do still exist. It may be the case that a similarly named organisation unrelated to the Knights Templar exists, but in that case it would also be ridiculous to link to the Knights Templar, an article on a completely unrelated organisation that existed in the middle ages. An order of chivalry can only be founded by a sovereign monarch, unlike a self-styled order. In this case, there is no proof there are any other members than Breivik, so we don't need a separate article on the supposed organisation. JonFlaune (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The article I cited above was an interview with another member, who was running around Malta wearing an AOKN shirt with a Templar Cross. Like I said, not the original Knights Templar, but an organization nonetheless. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

it also says that they do not know Breivik.Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Knights Templar 2083 (video) – Anders Behring Breivik

"Now, some webpages reports that Anders Behring Breivik has published a (12minutes) Video with the title: „Knights Templar 2083″."

Source: http://thomaslachetta.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/knights-templar-2083-video-anders-behring-breivik/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.198.216 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, the man was a Protestant, so it is impossible that he is a Templar. The two are mutually exclusive.

"The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order."(page 1363 from his manifesto)

people, the man apparently killed about 90 people for psychotic reasons. it shouldnt be impossible that he regards himself a templar nonetheless. --84.133.33.44 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

From his own "compendium" it seems his position is more complex than just "protestant" -

The Protestant liberal Church defends and encourages the ordination of women, divorce,

abortion, the mass scale distribution of contraceptive pills and contributes to glorify

homosexuality (including the ordination of homosexuals). When the Church resembles a

minimalistic shopping mall, the female priest wears jeans, defends abortion and the mass

scale distribution of contraceptive pills, defends the Jihad against the Israelis and lives a

sexually active life; then what is the point? We must go back to our Catholic roots. We,

the protestant nations of Europe should not forget that we were all Catholics once.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He was a 'cultural christian' as he described, and in his manifesto he describes just how as such, having those differing viewpoints are not exclusive. He mentioned that athiests and agnostics could be Christian as well - and those are farther away from Protestantism than freemasonry. You are correct that actual protestant beliefs are incompatible with being a Freemason - but he held to a non-religious (as he put it) cultural belief system in which he could take from different beliefs as he wanted. "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." (page 1309)

His definition of Christian being contradictory to the standard Biblical definition, it is not a further contradiction of his own views to include other religions and beliefs in as well, as he is approaching belief from a cultural standpoint and not a religious one.

He himself said it was “gruesome but necessary” to save Europe from Jihad and immigration. Similar to those who kill to bring the Twelfth Imam, he wanted to bring on the pushback by killing. He was critical of leaders in Norway who press for a new Palestinian state, specifically: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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) 03:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

In the above discussion [49], there seems to be a consensus against the addition of a zionist motivation in the intro. However i keep being reverted when i remove the phrase "far-right zionist". Any thoughts? Pass a Method talk 10:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is evidence that there seems to be a consensus against the addition that is consistent with the policy WP:CONSENSUS. I've seen you use the word consensus several times now to refer to something that isn't the same as WP:CONSENSUS. That discussion is full of nonsense that has nothing to do with policy e.g.

• Oppose – This is Nazi crap from...
• INCLUDE No doubt about his zionism, just read his manifesto...
• Oppose The more we learn about him the more serious his mental illness seems...
• Oppose he was not a practicing Zionist

The evidence itself, the sources compiled to support inclusion are rather compelling to say the least. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that while around 30 sources, many of supreme quality (Financial Times, Der Spiegel, The Jerusalem Post and others) have been provided to demonstrate that zionism is one of around four, maybe five, core ideological influences, no sources (no sources at all) indicating otherwise have been provided. The lead includes a poorly sourced assertation that "Serbian paramilitarism" is a core idea of his, there is only one source of lesser quality supporting it, yet the same people who are trying to remove zionism because they "don't like it", are not trying to remove "Serbian paramilitarism", in fact, they were the ones adding it. No fact in this article is better sourced (including sources specifically addressing its significance) than the fact that pro-zionism is one of his handful of core beliefs. JonFlaune (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

INCLUDE How many times? He's a Christian and Zionist. I appreciate that other Zionists and Christians are desperately trying to distance themselves from him, but quite a few sources high quality sources (including his own manifesto) say he definitely is both, and far fewer sources say he isn't, and they tend to be lower quality. This is what militant Christian fundamentalists look like.Teapeat (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise I think we could say pro-Israeli but leave out Zionist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik is not a Zionist (he is a Christian fundamentalist, after all), but a staunch supporter of Zionism, for strategic reasons. I haven't had time to look at the sources closely, but if the sources would substantiate that interpretation, it may help to resolve this controversy.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What the lead says is:

"In [the manifesto] he lays out his xenophobic worldview, which includes support for varying degrees of cultural conservatism, right-wing populism, anti-Islamization, far-right Zionism and Serbian paramilitarism."

It doesn't say he's a zionist, only that he supports, inter alia, far-right Zionism (source: The Jerusalem Post). JonFlaune (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If i recall correctly, in his manifesto, he talks more about supporting Hindus against muslims in Kashmir, so by that logic the lede should include "Indian Army" as one of the ideologies he supports too. Pass a Method talk 14:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if reliable secondary sources says so. If you recall we don't use the manifesto as a source because as a primary source that would be OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Or more correctly, if reliable sources say that his views on India are part part of his core ideological beliefs. JonFlaune (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but we could say Far right Hindoo nationalism (if RS make the claim).Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the sentence in the lead is open to different interpretations. If we read "support for ... far-right Zionism", then we would also need to read "support for anti-Islamization". However, his world-view is anti-Islamic, he does not just support that ideology as a political reality. As an aside, I am deeply appalled by the use of the word "anti-Islamization" in the text. It uses Breiviks own words to describe his beliefs, and presupposes that some form of Islamization would be happening in Europe. We should describe Breviks thinking in words that are external to his belief system: they are islamophobic.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with that last point (the Jpost article simply said his worldview included "extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"). JonFlaune (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As do I. He made casue with many anti-islam groups, not just those in europe.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Max imprisonment is 21 years?

Any truth to this before we include this? Sticka (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on which charges are being put forward, I guess. For "murder", it's 21 years, for "crimes against humanity", it's 30 years, for risks of harm against the general population, it's "preventive detention" for 5 years, with the possibility of indefinite extension every fifth year. If the prosecutor decides on charging for 21 and 30 years, the choice of custody will be forfeited, unless I'm mistaken. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He could also walk out scot free. I mean no jail, but locked in a mental hospital. Norum 23:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits (2)

This string of edits goes against consensus established on this talk page. I do not want to revert more of that stuff than I am currently doing, so I am asking other editors to step in.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) "Extemist" is the term used in the utilized ref (also see WP:TERRORIST). We shouldn't list him as a "terrorist" in the affirmative per WP:NPOV, but can refer to the attacks as "terrorist attacks". (2) ultranationalism and xenophobia are listed in most of the refs documenting his manifesto. (3) The order makes more sense to go Islam, Eurabia, ... than to place "cultural Marxism" in-between the two. (4) Where is this so called "WP:Consensus" that you are referring to? Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. (5) The image was released with his manifesto and displays his disdain for Marxism and multiculturalism with the patch. Thus, it is more relevant to a section on the manifesto, than his early years as a teenager.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not imply that your edits need to be undone in their entirety. But you have, for example, restored the link to Cultural Marxism, while consensus is that we shouldn't link there, as Breivik is not referring to what is being described in that article.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with you unlinking it. Anything else?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Born in London [or in Oslo?]

According to this source, Breivik was born in London not Oslo. 93.174.8.253 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of source for hs being born in Lomdon, I would ask that some soeuces are provided saying he was born in Oslo.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See the article in noWP, note 2 (Aftenposten).

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have started a topic on the noWP talk page.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another source saying he was born in Oslo: Helsingin Sanomat describes him as syntyperäinen oslolainen.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is that in English? As being a native of Oslo just means he lives there, it dose not mean he was born there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not quite sure what syntyperäinen means.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

However, the Aftenposten reference clearly says "born on Februari 13, 1979 in Oslo"

Aftenposten søndag 24. juli 2011, side 16 i nyhetsseksjonen i faktaboksen «Anders Behring Breivik» oppgis «Født 13. februar 1979 i Oslo»

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes things awkward another difference of sources. Maybe leave it out untill we know.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, let it say London, for the time being. Anyway, I asked on the Finnish talk page, where I was informed it means he was born in Oslo.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It does say that, I am willing to accept that. Thats the problom, so I think its best to leave out his place of borth untill thre is some kind of consensus from sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. A more definite source would be a desideratum. The French article also uses the Finnish reference.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edited the heading for the sake of clarity.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Failing definite information, I think it's more likely he was born in London. The articles that say so are more recent, and some contain an interview with his father.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting his birthplace as London: "Mr Breivik was born on 13 February 1979 in London, where his father, a diplomat, had been stationed at the time."--68.37.161.91 (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

However, the Norwegian article has a reference to a Norwegian newspaper advertisment from 1979 which states that he was born in Aker hospital in Oslo. ("Annonse (15. Februar 1979): «Dagens navn» (norsk) – Aftenposten, morgen, s. 10. [Aker sykehus, 13. ds.: En gutt. Wenche og Jens Breivik.]" This means: A boy was born to Wenche and Jens Breivik on the 13th day.) --Mlang.Finn (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Matter resolved—born in Oslo.

Diff. Thank you, Gryphonis!

"Dagens navn". Aftenposten, morgen. 15 February 1979. p. 10. Aker hospital, Oslo, 13. February 1979. A boy. Name of parents. In Norwegian: (Aker sykehus, 13. ds.: En gutt. Wenche og Jens Breivik)

A scan would of course be good.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Gryphonis if he can provide a scan.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation:

Aftenposten, 15 February 1979, morning edition, p.10: "Today's names."

"Dagens navn". Aftenposten, morgen: p. 10. 15 February 1979.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for needless repetition. I didn't see the post above the heading.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ce heading.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics

"He sets the cost of the preparations for the attacks at 317,000 euros - "130,000 out of pocket and 187,500 euros in lost revenue over three years." Something's wrong there. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My maths may be out but 3+ 8 is 11 (110,000) 1 + 1 is 2 (200,000) and 7 + ) is 7 5 + 5 = 5I make that 317,500. What does the source actualky say?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The original source uses the exact same figures:

Enligt Anders Behring Breivik har arbetet kostat honom 317.000 euro – ”130.000 ur egen ficka och 187.500 euro i utebliven inkomst under tre år.”

"According to Anders Behring Breivik, the work cost him 317,000 euros - "130,000 out of his own pocket and 187,500 in lost revenue over three years."" You have to talk to Dagens Nyheter themselves to get the correct figures. JIP | Talk 18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's fine if Breivik himself is the one that can't do maths, or the source, but either way it deserves a "[sic]" because the two figures add up to 317,500 euros, not 317,000. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. The quote now has a "(sic)" tag at the end indicating that the error in mathematics comes from the cited source, not from Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 15:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I'm a little concerned that the section on Freemasonry is not properly researched. The first two links http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/norway-bombing-attack-far-right in this section do not mention freemasonry on his facebook page or the clothing that he was wearing at all. The third link is in Norweigan, so I cannot verify it. If someone can, please help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.93.2.218 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for pointing it out. i just deleted it Pass a Method talk 10:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Norwegian Order of Freemasons stating he was a member and has now been expelled[50]. JonFlaune (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Not everything in the manifesto is Brevik's own writings

An example. The Wiki article states: "He also endorsed the writings of Australian historian Keith Windschuttle in the 2083 manifesto, as well as former Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello."
This line seems to suggest that Breivik himself quoted or commented on these figures - but that's not true. Those names all appear in books 1 and 2 of the manifesto, in essays written by Fjordman. Breivik himself didn't write about those three people. I think the structure of the manifesto should maybe be outlined in one section of the article and the fact that half of it isn't his own work should be cleared up. Different media outlets are quoting from books 1 & 2 as if it's all Breivik's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.6.143 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A great deal of the manifesto was copied Ad Verbatim from whatever sources he could find hat agreed with him, I've read. About 40-60%. That includes the Unabomber manifesto, although he changed every occurrence of "black" to "Muslim" or "Cultural Marxist", or something to that extent. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Steroid use

I haven't seen anything on his steroid use. One example <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2020583/Anders-Behring-Breivik-One-mass-killer-drug-addled-mind.html> JASpencer (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? this source does say he used steroids.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The killer took steroids but it has no mention in the WP article. --Javaweb (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Ah I see, well it could be added.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Subsection: Political and religious views

This section does not contain any references to neoconservativism, which was the primary source of his ideologies and irrational hate/fear of Islam. The current sections only includes his views on Islam and Christianity and nothing about his extreme neoconservative political viewpoint. That section is currently incomplete, inaccurate and misleading.

His manifest mentions these neoconservative people and websites repeatedly when he justified his actions and ideology

People Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Aluma Dankowitz, Bat Ye'or, Pamela Geller, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes...

Websites: AmericanThinker.com, jihadwatch.org, memri.org, faithfreedom.org, theReligionOfPeace.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com...

Fiolou (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We need rs saying he is a Neocon, not us interperating what he has writen.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See the 'Norwegian right-wing terrorist' section above. Unless reliable sources link Breivik's ideas with neoconservativism, we won't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to mention his views on multiculturalism, political correctness, etc. ~Asarlaí 13:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not neoconservatism. TFD (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

...And this is not a forum. Fiolou has already been told that we need sources to back up his speculation. Material not related to article content may be deleted from talk pages, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that he appears to be an extreme neoconservative, but we still need sources to include it in the article (his support for the neoconservative Tea Party movement is already mentioned by many sources). JonFlaune (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What should we call the section about Islam?

There is a subsection on Breivik's political views about Islam. To briefly state my opinion on different possible titles, (a) "Anti-Islamization" assumes that some kind of Islamization would be actually happening, (b) "Anti-Islam" could also mean that he would just reject Islam as a religion, believing that Allah is a false God, (c) "Islamophobia" best describes the amalgam of racism, religious fervor, and paranoia that characterizes Breivik's thinking, (b) "Anti-islamic racism" also does this, and may be a compromise wording.

To gain some clarity, I am submitting the possible subsection titles to a vote.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This list has been expanded by other editors.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we'd be agreeing with Breivik just by using the term "Islamization" or by having it in a section heding. Whether Islamization is happening or not (I hav no view one way or the other), Breivik clearly beleves that it's happening; this idea is central to his whole ideology. Thus we can't avoid using the term. However, for the sake of neutrality, it should probably be written in quotation marks. ~Asarlaí 00:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

So we would say then "what he perceives as the islamification of Europe”.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Islam

Islam in Europe

Anti-Islam

Islamism

Islamism in Europe

Anti-Islamism

Islamization

"Islamization"

Islamization of Europe

"Islamization of Europe"

Anti-Islamization

Eurabia

• Support I disagree with Cs32en's assessment that islamization is not happening in Europe. Major newspapers such as BBC have acknowledged it.[51]. Right-wing politicians in Europe focus on islam is another clue. As are terms such as Eurabia and Londonistan. Pass a Method talk 22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

While I actually think that your view is not supported by actual facts, this is not the issue. We cannot imply that "Islamization" would exist unless there were a clear consensus in scholarly and news sources that this would be the case.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal remark, unrelated to the discussion on improving the article.
Say that to the Stop Islamisation of Europe Pass a Method talk 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also pint our that the BBC is not saying islamization happening in Europe.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Eurabia"

Spread of Islam

Islamophobia

• Support See comment at the top of this section.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support A common word, easily understood, and with a meaning entirely consistent with the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support He disliked Muslims (after all he tired to make common ground with groups hostile to Islam, not the islamification of Europe).Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose It is a loaded and manipulative term. May be common in left (European) and liberal (US) discourse, particularly for media figures from those circles, but is not one that has entered or will ever enter the general vocabulary.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. All the "-phobias" are pop psychiatry that fail to understand the difference between fear and hatred. I think that the whole section should be rewritten to organize it around his anti-Islamic views and Crusader mentality (a title I'd use if I kept the section) making it clear that his religion is of secondary importance, and making it clear that all the different groups and individuals he supported were rooted in his perception of them as fighting Muslims. But when I tried the first basic reform in that direction I got reverted, so I'm not going to make the effort. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• No vote Phobia is irrational fear of someone or something, or fear disproportional to the actual danger that someone or something is posing to. Islamophobia would then be irrational fear of Islam, or fear of Islam disproportional to the real danger that Islam would pose to someone or something. So to define someone as Islamophob, or something as Islamophobia, Islam should not be dangerous at all, or if it is dangerous it shouldn't pose any real or grave threat to someone who, or something what, does or doesn't have phobia.93.139.168.22 (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic racism

• Oppose: Islam is not a race. ~Asarlaí 19:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree, its a religion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

Intro photo

He purposely released photos of himself dressed in formal clothes so that he would be depicted as that. His despicable actions do not warrant such a glamorous depiction. I believe that the introduction picture should be replaced with something like the one of him in the police-car, in a much more un-glamorous pose. ReliableCoaster (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did, unfortunately. I disagree with your conclusion, however. We should use the picture (available for our use) that best depicts Behring Breivik. Wikipedia is neutral. We shouldn't strive to find a picture so to speak fitting of his crime because we dislike him, just like Stalin's atrocities is no good reason to change the top picture in the article on him. /Julle (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Das Bild sieht aus, als wäre es zusammenmontiert. Die Körperhaltung ist unnatürlich. The picture looks like made by two pics to one. The head and the shoulders do not really fit together. Do you have a better photo? Yours s. Nobody can know at that moment surely, who made these pics. Zabia2 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I too believe that the main picture is terrible, and does not help the encyclopaedic nature of the article... If you're suggesting that; 'We should use the picture (available for our use) that best depicts Behring Breivik' - then the picture of him in the police car is by far the more accurate. Until a proper ‘mugshot’ is available I think that including his own posed photos of him suited or in his ‘leotard’ is just playing into his idea of managing his image on the net… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.100.150 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Linking the terrorist manifesto is unsettling

Not being a regular wikipedia contributor, I do not know the applying policies. But the so-called 'manifesto' is a call for terrorism, explicitly meant to encourage possible imitators. I don't think it can or should be linked on any respectable site. Same applies to the video. Corinius (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Corinius. The manifest has a call to arms, bomb making recipes, tactics and strategies for carrying out similar acts. The odds of a copy cat act of violence is virtually certain. None of the arguments below represent real and immediate threats to safety/security. Would you allow links to documents which instruct people on how to circumvent airport security and hijack airplanes? Fiolou (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So are works of Marx and Engels especially those calling for bloodbath and genocide toward Croats and other Slavs and yet we still didn't ban the works of these two men.

Here are just three examples and yet they are more then sufficient to prove genocidal and terroristic intentions of these two:

"Peitschen Gesindel in die Donau Staupen fort das Freche Lumpenpack Die Bettler, hongrig, inres Lebens mude Ein Schwarm Landlaufer, Schelme, Vagabunden, Kroatenabschaum, niedre Bauernaknechte Die ausgespien ihr ubersatigt land Zu tollen Abend tuuern Sicherm untergang." (Karl Marx)

"...unerbittlichen Kampf auf Leben und Tod mit dem revolutionsverräterischen Slaventum, Vernichtungskampf und rücksichtslosen Terrorismus... " (Karl Marx)

"Aber das größte "Verbrechen" der Deutschen und Magyaren ist allerdings, daß sie diese 12 Millionen Slawen daran verhindert haben, türkisch zu werden!" (Friedrich Engels)

And yet they are revered as a philosophers instead as a rampage criminals what they certainly are. I guess that when Karl Marx writes:"...Vernichtungskampf und rücksichtslosen Terrorismus..." he is calling for unconditional love and heartwarming humanism towards Slavs. 93.138.109.180 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All this is obviously completely irrelevant to my inquiry. In fact, it corroborates my impression that linking this material is inappropriate. Corinius (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Referring to the Wikipedia guidelines on external links:

1. Manifesto and video do not meet the criteria listed as “what normally can be linked”.

2. The inclusion is not warranted by common sense. The manifesto encourages terrorism. Moreover, it also gives detailed information on the acquisition of firearms, explosives, and the building of bombs, to only list the most obvious problems.

Linking it gives the (hopefully false) impression that Wikipedia condones terrorism. Future terrorists should not get their information on how to kill innocent people via Wikipedia.

3. Due to its encouragement of homicide and its content of extreme hate-speech, it also violates the criterion of “tastefulness” (mildly expressed).

4. The inclusion of the manifesto and the video as external links gives undue weight to Breivik’s views, and thus, violates the NPOV principle.

If no arguments appear here as to why the links should be kept despite the above arguments that they should not, I am going to delete them. Corinius (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Much of the information needed for the article is available through reliable news sources so it is not necessary to use this primary source. However,many of these sources link to it. --Javaweb (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Yes, it's probably inevitable that some of these sources link the manifesto. But that falls under their responsibility. I just think that it can't be defended to link this stuff on Wikipedia. Corinius (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see it linking to these two documents, the manifesto and the video, would be in line with Wikipedia practices. I also find the above interpretation of our external links guidelines to be highly biased. __meco (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let us see now:

1. Two of three criteria regard to functionality and accessibility and remaining one criterion says: "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?"

That does mean that the site content, for example: book, manifesto, essay, etc., presented there should in the context of the featured article; but it doesn't mean that the content of the presented book, manifesto, essay, etc. should be useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.

Two examples that support that view of Wikipedia policy are:

A) Wikipedia article on a Ted Kaczynski;

B) Wikipedia article on a book called Main Kampf;

C) And common sense, because people are held responsible for their act regardless of their motives and knowledge of the law. It really doesn't matter if you rob 7/11 because Your daughter is ill and You need money to buy her medication or if You are junkie in need for a quick fix. Or if Your best friend came to You with an idea how it would be cool to pull a gun on a clerk and take money, beverages and groceries from him and You was convinced by his eloquence and arguments to go down the crime path. Caught, You will be held responsible for Your participation in, and for Your acts during, that robbery. "He told me so" defense won't fly with judge or jury.

2. Main Kampf encourages racism, antisemitism and killing of weak and sick people and yet there are 16 links to it.

And here is detailed Wikipedia article on a fertilizer bomb.

Does that gives an impression that Wikipedia condones genocide? Not to me and definitely not to any person with a common sense.

And regarding your argument that: "Future terrorists should not get their information on how to kill innocent people via Wikipedia."; knowledge of chemistry is important in process of making any explosives so does that mean that you would like to expel chemistry from school curriculum and ban it as a science?

3. Like I said, Main Kampf encourages racism, antisemitism and killing of weak and sick people and it is not known for it's love speech. And many surely would argue that it violates the criterion of "tastefulness" but that rule is about site content and presentation of a site content, not about content of a site content.

4. Even if Breivik was the one that is editing this Wikipedia article that wouldn't be undue weight, it would be an original research. Undue weight would be, for example, if one or more persons would go to write in a great detail; with all the evidence and sources available to them; on a minority view that Earth is flat while the majority view; based upon almost all scientifically available evidence so far; would be only briefly mentioned if mentioned at all.

Undue weight would also be if there are two totally opposite views on any topic with same amount of evidence and supporters but one view would get overwhelming coverage and other view would be briefly mentioned or would not be mentioned at all.

So, in Breivik’s case for undue weight you should have:

A) Some evidence, sources, people, etc. that are minority and in support of his views and deeds;

B) Some evidence, sources, people, etc. that are large majority and condemn his views and deeds;

C) One or more Wikipedia editors who are largely and extensively citing sources which, and people who, provide justification or support for Breivik's deeds while simultaneously ignore or just briefly mention sources who are opposed and critical to Breivik's deeds.

But here you have just some facts, Breivik's compendium named 2083 aka Breivik's manifesto and 12:23 minute video. These are just facts as Hitler's Main Kampf, Ted Kaczynski's Industrial Society and Its Future aka Unabomber Manifesto or works of Karl Marx that are available in truckload download, all of above mentioned easily accessible with little help of Wikipedia links.

And on a final note: Wikipedia is not court of law, moral guideline, society guardian and most and for-all Wikipedia is not censored.93.138.242.108 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

@meco: In what way are my interpretations of the guidelines biased? The critique is somewhat unspecific.

@Anonymous IP, and everyone else:

First: This is not a plea to change the guidelines of Wikipedia, it’s just an advance to enforce them. If the Wikipedia community agrees on keeping the links, I won’t press the matter any further. But I am still of the opinion that the guidelines on external links (!) speak against an inclusion of the external links to the Breivik manifesto and video. The guidelines on regular Wikipedia content and editing do not apply to this question.

Referring to the pro-inclusion arguments brought up so far:

1) Regarding “tastefulness” (arguments no. 1 and 3 by anonymous IP): Actually, I think the guideline does mean that the content of the linked site or document should be “tasteful”. I can’t really see the argument what else it should mean. The argument: “[…] that rule is about site content and presentation of a site content, not about content of a site content” sounds somewhat hair-splitting to me.

There are only three possible reasons why someone should upload these documents on the internet on an unrestricted site: a) Morbid fascination with terrorists, mass-murders and spree killers; b) sensationalistic, if not voyeuristic curiosity, and/or the desire to get traffic on one’s site; c) sympathy with Breivik’s views and/or deed and the desire to spread his views, and possibly, to encourage terrorism and support for terrorism.

None of these possible reasons for a site or uploader to offer these documents meets the criterion of “tastefulness”. -- Naturally, “common sense” is a somewhat blurry concept, but I claim that this is exactly what common sense should tell you.

2) Argument “Other works/documents are externally-linked on Wikipedia; such as the Unabomber manifesto (Kaczynski manifesto), Mein Kampf, and works by Marx and Engels.”

I can’t say too much about these works because I have read neither the Kaczynski manifesto, nor Mein Kampf, nor the works of Marx and Engels. But I have read lengthy parts of the Breivik manifesto.

That these other works are linked on Wikipedia does not automatically mean that the Breivik manifesto should be linked, too. Maybe the linking of these other works, or at least some of them, could legitimately be called into question, too.

The specific reason why I think that the Breivik manifesto should not be linked, as strongly violating the guideline of tastefulness, is that it explicitly and extensively appeals to its readers to imitate his deed. In fact, the mobilizing and motivating of imitators is its declared sole and entire purpose.

I suspect the Kaczynski manifesto does no such thing and I suspect that Mein Kampf does neither, because even if it contains what with a recent term would be called “hate speech”, it is, to my knowledge, not a call for terrorism.

Same goes for the Marx and Engels works, although I want to add that the Marx/Engels works are very extensive and if you want to accuse them for “hate speech”, you should be more specific than to just quote some random lines without citations and then claim that “the Marx/Engels works are pure hate speech”.

Besides, note that "Mein Kampf" meets the guideline that Wikipedia articles on books can normally externally-link to online versions of that book. This is the page on Anders Behring Breivik, not on the manifesto, so this rule does not apply here.

3) Regarding "undue weight": Undue weight with regards to external links refers to the composition of the provided links. Linking the manifesto and the video makes two pro-Breivik links. To avoid undue weight, there should be some external links that are anti-Breivik, to counter the impression that Wikipedia favors the pro-Breivik views over the anti-Breivik views (provided we include these two links).

4) “We have an article on fertilizer bombs, too”: The article on the fertilizer bomb does not contain the recommendation to use it and specify against whom you should use it. Again, the manifesto does exactly these two things.

Chemistry, needless to say, is a science applicable to many things; it’s not specifically intended to build bombs, and even if it can be used to build bombs, it’s neutral as to for what you should use these bombs. Explosives have civil uses, too. The Breivik manifesto content is specifically a manual how to build bombs for the use of killing people.

But again, the crucial point is not so much that it teaches you how to build bombs, but that it specifically appeals for like-minded readers to use them and against whom they should use it. That’s offensive to anyone who is a potential victim of such a terror attack and as such, the document is “untasteful”.

5) “It’s just some facts.” With this reasoning, you could link about anything to any Wikipedia page. The question is whether the linking of these facts is compliant with the guidelines.

6) “Mein Kampf encourages racism, antisemitism and killing of weak and sick people and yet there are 16 links to it. […] Does that gives an impression that Wikipedia condones genocide? Not to me and definitely not to any person with a common sense.”

Yes, you and me and most people that come here are decent people with common sense. That doesn’t mean that all people that come here are such people. Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet. This page is accessible to millions of anonymous users world-wide. To say “we all are responsible and decent, none of us are extremists, none of us shares Breivik’s views and ideas” is naïve and therefore, not an argument.

Yes, people are responsible for their acts and so on. Does not relate to the question at hand at all. Sentencing a killer does not bring his victims back to life.

Wikipedia is not a law court or a moral tribunal, but it is also not a platform for political extremists to spread their propaganda. Many of those that upload these documents on the internet are political extremists. Wikipedia should not give undue weight to them.

7) “[The Unabomber manifesto, Mein Kampf etc. are] easily accessible with little help of Wikipedia links.” Very well. But this is Wikipedia. The discussion is not about “banning works/documents”, or “censoring the internet”, it’s about Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Not including these links because they do not fit in with the guidelines is not the same as “banning the works” or “censoring Wikipedia”.

So, to repeat my arguments anti-inclusion in condensed forms:

1) The links are not “tasteful” under Wikipedia guidelines, because it is offensive to anyone who is a potential target or victim of possible future Breivik-style terror attacks. It’s a document that calls for the killing of living persons. As a European resident and a potential victim of future Breivik-style spree killers, I feel strongly offended by it. The hypothetical intentions of the uploader don’t matter.

2) Linking the manifesto and the video without providing additional links that counterbalance the extremist views these documents express, gives undue weight to Breivik-style extremist views. If they are linked, there also should be a reasonable amount of useful (!) links that are explicitly critical of Breivik’s views. As long as there are no or not enough useful links that offer such a counterbalance, the Breivik documents should not be linked. And I don’t mean that some random alibi links should be included, I mean that there should be some anti-Breivik links that actually meet the guidelines independently and on their own (such as usefulness and relevance). As long as they are not there, the linking of the manifesto and the video appear inappropriate.

And (again), as a closing remark: Not to externally-link this documents is not a “ban”. It has nothing to do with censoring. This debate is not supposed to be about morality or responsibility, but about Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Corinius (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum:

Regarding my definition of „tastelessness“: I don’t want to imply that every external link has to be “tasteful” to everyone. My phrasing is probably too general in my above argument. The wording of the guideline goes: “Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?”

And my judgement is that linking an appeal for mass-murder/terrorism on a page about a mass-murderer/terrorist is not proper (specifically, tasteful) in the context of the article. It might be different with other “manifesto”-style documents, but this one is intentionally designed for distribution over the internet. Uploading it implies that the uploader condones tolerates this intentions. Not all uploaders may think so far, but that does not make the act any more harmless. This is why I consider the linking of this document tasteless in the context of the article.

The same might not apply to an abridged version or an excerpt that does not contain the encouragement of imitators, combined with the detailed descriptions of how to prepare terrorist attacks, and the plea to distribute the document further. Corinius (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What does "Uploading it implies that the uploader condones this intentions." mean ? I don't follow. By uploading do you mean linking i.e. a person who adds it as an external link or cites it as an inline reference is condoning mass-murder and terrorism ? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a person. It doesn't condone things. It provides access to information. Perhaps someone has already mentioned this but WP:EL is a guideline, WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, there's an important difference. I should add that I don't have a view about whether the links are suitable as external links other than that if they are already used as inline citations in the article body there's no need to have them as external links. Perhaps this whole dicussion should be moved over to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard to get a broader input from the community. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What I mean with "uploading implies condoning": Manifesto & video are extremist propaganda. People who upload this and sites who host this stuff unabridged and unedited condone its intentions promote it. Some do it deliberately, some unwittingly. “Condoning” Promoting does not require intent. Therefore, I deem that linking to a site that hosts it is inappropriate.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. The manifesto and the video, as you probably already know, may not be cited as inline sources “analysed, synthesized, interpreted or evaluated” in this article, because of the ban on original research. Therefore, the manifesto is not linked in the inline citations. The inline citations only reference secondary sources. It is currently not cited and it will presumably stay this way.

As to Wikipedia “only providing access to information”: Selecting from all possible information is a core task of an encyclopedia. Presenting, and by extension, linking information means implicitly evaluating and weighting it. My position is that linking extremist propaganda gives undue weight to this propaganda.

Besides, manifesto & video itself do not contain information that can not be extracted from secondary sources. So the amount of actual information gained by linking it is little to nothing.

Finally, the manifesto & video itself should be regarded as biased – not only in respect to the political views that are expressed in it, but also in regard to the motives that Anders Behring Breivik ascribes to his own actions. In a nutshell, manifesto and video are not, in itself, information on the subject of the article.

I didn't really think about the difference between guideline and policy until now, but as I said, I don't think that excluding this links falls under censorship. They don't contain unique information, and they are extremist propaganda. To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not link Al Qaeda propaganda videos either. I think this is an analogous case.

As I seem to be the only one who holds this views (although nobody, until now, has reinserted the links), I too think getting some more opinions from a broader crowd is desirable. If I am overruled, I'll just step back. Corinius (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I for one find your reasoning flawed. I fail to see how uploading (which it is not, its linking) manifesto endorses it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, my stance is that uploading/hosting it in its unaltered form is condoning promoting. Not necessarily endorsing, but condoning promoting. -- And I know this is not about uploading, but linking. But I think linking to a site that uploads/hosts it is inappropriate for the same reasons. Corinius (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we are condoning his actions by linking to his 'manifesto'.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Point registered. I have set a notice on external links noticeboard which will hopefully attract more discussion. Corinius (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I can't follow your thinking on the condoning aspect. It sounds like social engineering. If I add an external link to the manifesto I'm not condoning it, and I know that for a fact because I know what I condone and what I don't condone. A conscious human being cannot unwittingly condone something. To "unwittingly condone" is an oxymoron unless you are in living under a regime that tells you what to think rather than lets you think for yourself and Wikipedia is not such a regime. Wikipedia doesn't condone religion by linking to their primary texts, it doesn't condone race hatred by linking to organization's official sites, it doesn't condone the actions of any government, any army, any business or anything at all by linking to their official sites and publications. Someone could legitimately argue that the manifesto fits WP:ELMAYBE 4. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". As reader I think I would expect to be able to find his manifesto linked from this article. Wikipedia is where I expected to find and did find the Unabomber Manifesto. It really didn't occur to me for one second that Wikipedia or whoever added the link was condoning his crimes. It's good news that the multiple citiations to the manifesto have been replaced in the article but primary sources are allowed under limited condtions so it may be back (although as I've said elsewhere, that shouldn't be necessary in my view). Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it’s not social engineering. It appears I chose the wrong word. I should have said “promote” instead of “condone”. The important thing is that your personal intentions on this documents don’t matter.

Let me cite your own words for you, Sean.hoyland: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a person.” In other words, it’s completely irrelevant what you as an editor, or the entirety of Wikipedia editors, personally think about this material.

If you go to town and hand out fliers to passers-by that call for murder of certain people and give instructions on how to build bombs to blow them up, you’ll get yourself in trouble, and very rightly so. It’s not enough to say “But these fliers are not actually my opinion, I just hand them out because they’re an interesting thing to read!” If you spread such things, your own opinion is irrelevant. The fact is that you promoted them. You’re responsible for promoting them, even if you did not make them, even if you had no bad intents.

Yes, Wikipedia links controversial institutions and the like, but I think this is simply different from all the cases that you list. Also, pages on institutions are explicitly recommended, if not expected to link the websites of that institutions (even if they are controversial). The manifesto is not Breivik’s website. Generally, I think you are too inclined to treat the manifesto as a legitimate, reputable “publication” or “press kit” when it is actually not. It is nothing else and nothing less than a call for murder and a manual for aspiring mass-murderers. It doesn’t give a shit about what you think about it when you upload it, distribute it, or link it. It speaks for itself.

And in regard to WP:ELMAYBE 4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" –- I don't think it holds water to cite Breivik’s own mass murder manifesto as a “knowledgeable source”. We don’t know at all how much of the information in the manifesto is factual. It would be reasonable to assume that the manifesto itself is highly biased on the subject of the article, Anders Behring Breivik, himself. It’s not a “knowledgeable source” just because he himself wrote it.

“As reader I think I would expect to be able to find his manifesto linked from this article. Wikipedia is where I expected to find and did find the Unabomber Manifesto.” - Well, I don’t. Actually, it shocked me to find this linked here. I don’t know about the Unabomber Manifesto, but I have actually looked into the Breivik manifesto and that has convinced me that it can’t be linked, not in its standing form. The supposed analogy with the Unabomber manifesto (which I don’t know) could be misleading.

“It really didn't occur to me for one second that Wikipedia or whoever added the link was condoning his crimes.” - Switch “condoning” for “promoting”. Spreading propaganda means promoting it. There’s no way around it. Propaganda is promoted by spreading it.

There are persons who condone his crimes and they use the internet. That’s not paranoia. I don’t accuse anyone, but personally I would not sweepingly assume good intentions in anyone who uploads this material. Yes I know, it’s Wikipedia policy to “assume good intentions”, which is why I would never accuse anyone – not on Wikipedia – but I surely don’t believe that everyone has good intentions. For that’s clearly naïve. Corinius (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is public safety. His document gives instructions on how to make bombs for the purpose of killing lots of people. WP policy takes public safety into account. What does someone have to to do to convince you? Blow up a bomb built with these instructions in downtown Oslo? Done.
--Javaweb (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Well, that certainly simplifies the matter quite a bit ... Looks like my arguments were needlessly complicated. Corinius (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC) -- Or maybe they weren't. Corinius (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Which wikipedia policy are you referring to ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean, thanks. I can't find the policy. I think I confused it with this WP essay opining,

"Information that is demonstrably dangerous to others has, in the past, been removed from edit histories without objection." Neither a policy or a guideline but one I agree with. I have corrected my post above to reflect that.

We have to use our judgement. Not everything is written down as policy. Could you please respond to "His document gives instructions on how to make bombs for the purpose of killing lots of people. What does someone have to to do to convince you? Blow up a bomb built with these instructions in downtown Oslo? Done." That is still a showstopper for me. --Javaweb (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Breivik did not need to look up on wikipedia how to do it. So I really cannot see how keeping this material of wikipeoda coould have (or will) save lives.Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably won't write a whole lot more here, considering that I have already filled some pages. What I am going to say as my provisional final statement:

It's not necessarily about saving lives, it's about putting people off by merely linking this shit here. Everyone who really wants to get his hands on the manifesto will find it, regardless of whether it is linked on Wikipedia or not.

But that's not a good reason for linking it here. We don't have to do it, just because others do it. Honestly, I personally was shocked to find this linked here and I wonder what goes on in people's head that carelessly and uncritically link documents that tell you in detail how and why you should commit terrorist massacres on civilians, and in which a mass murderer proudly praises himself as a hero and martyr, sneeringly poses with guns, spreads his ideas and his propaganda, and explicitly states that the attention this manual will get is more or less the main cause why he killed those 80 people, including teenagers and kids, and that by this manual he wishes to inspire as many imitators and successors in spirit and deed as possible.

As I said: It's offending to link it, even if it won't save lives. If the Wikipedia community would actually decide to keep it here, it would severely shake my belief in Wikipedia's self-organizing (and self-restricting) potential. It feels repugnant to merely visit a page where it is just simply linked like this -- unaltered, uncommented, utterly uncritical; just like a respectable source or a legitimate self-presentation. It's doing exactly what Breivik wanted the public to do: spreading his ideas and thus, if possible, provoke new massacres. It's weird that I have to fight tooth and nails to get this insight across.

As to "Wikipedia just provides information", there is only one legitimate reason to be interested in this material: For a professional that has to analyze this shit for his job, as a journalist or criminalist. All other possible reasons are sick and sinister.

I said earlier, “it’s not about morality and responsibility, it’s about [policies and] guidelines”. It appears I don’t know the policies enough to safely argue on their basis. At the end of the day, it’s about morality and responsibility. I suspect there are corresponding principles somewhere in the policies, I just don’t know them.

In a nutshell, I think to distribute these documents unaltered is a moral (and possibly, criminal) offence, whether the person which does it is aware of it or not, and irrespectively of which laws apply. Therefore, we should not even link to them. So far my personal POV.

I think Wikipedia guidelines on offensive material applies. The page seems primarily refer to profane language and vulgarity, but I think the manifesto and the video are without a doubt offensive and obscene (if not sexually). The guideline states "words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." Linking the offensive material in its original form is not treating it encyclopedic. Then again, this rule is a guideline and not a policy.

Citing from here: “For legal reasons, content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws […] of Florida, where Wikipedia servers are hosted.”

Possibly the question boils down to whether the promotion of such material -- read: terrorist propaganda -- is legal under the laws of Florida. Corinius (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well You Yourself gave two reasons why Breivik's compendium should be linked in the Wikipedia:

1. "As to "Wikipedia just provides information", there is only one legitimate reason to be interested in this material: For a professional that has to analyze this shit for his job, as a journalist or criminalist."

Well, journalists today usually use Wikipedia as a starting point for their research.

2. "Possibly the question boils down to whether the promotion of such material -- read: terrorist propaganda -- is legal under the laws of Florida."

And now there is something in the USA called First Amendment. But now, before You wiki it, google it or jump to any conclusion You should know few things:

A. Because something called presumption of innocence You should first make a case on a District court in Florida and prove that Breivik's compendium called 2083 is not protected under First Amendment and it's acts.

B. If court rules in Your favor then this court ruling should uphold on a United States courts of appeals.

C. If ruling in Your favor is still holding nevertheless it should still uphold on a Supreme Court of the United States.

Until that ruling is made and You prove Your case in court of law You have no moral or legal grounds to remove something you "find unsettling" from anywhere let alone from Wikipedia, of course unless in case of Wikipedia You get a backup from majority of Wikipedia community.

And now on a less formal note.

I see that You reefer to Yourself as "a potential victim of future Breivik-style spree killers".

It reminded me to feminist rhetorics where at some rape awareness meetings, women who have not been raped, and there is pretty high probability that they will never be raped, are referred to as "potential survivors" and their male classmates are referred to as "potential rapists".

Well, welcome to the real world where there is always some probability that You will find Yourself in harms way. And while I welcome common sense and caution I certainly don't welcome full-scale hysteria and paranoia.

And to say that putting a link to his compendium is promotion of terrorism is as well as to say that bookstores promote Nazism if they sell Main Kampf, Marxism if they sell Das Kapital or that match factories promote forest and other fires by selling their matches.

It is responsibility of families and people themselves to use the common sense, to abide to a positive law legislation, to educate themselves according to their wishes, possibilities and needs. And not to go on a killing spree.93.138.150.106 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, because of the 1st amendment, there is no legal jeopardy involved for WP. However, the issue is should we link to a tried and true instruction on how to blow things up that took the bomber experimentation, time and money to develop. I would rather not aid the next wacko. Morality, practicality, and legality are not the same thing. The other documents you mentioned are political rather than instructions on how to blow up people. Also, he is noted for killing lots of unarmed folks at a youth summer camp and so his writings are not notable in themselves unlike Mein Kampf or Das Capital. --Javaweb (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Nor are we promoting or tolerating his views, we are reporting them in a way that allows readers to judge for themselves what he says with out the interpretation of others.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda is promoted (and tolerated) by spreading it. It doesn't matter what you think about it when you spread it. It speaks for itself. Besides, we are not "reporting them" when we link them. We just link them. And while viewing the original documents may eliminate the interpretation of others, it does not eliminate Breivik's own interpretation of his person or his actions. These documents are not objective sources on the subject of the article.Corinius (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No propaganda is not tolerated or promoted by reporting its existence and allowing others to read it, it is promoted and tolerated by saying its true (which we are not doing, we are just linking to the text).

No they are the reason he gave, and in order to understand his actions we need to understand his ‘excuses’. We can hardly say that he believed X and then refuse to allow readers to read what he actually beloved can we?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes we could if we chose to, and I disagree on the first point, and as to the second point, the content of the manifesto is reported at length by secondary sources. Corinius (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Side note: We have got some parallel discussion on the external links noticeboard (read here). I suggest that we keep further discussion here, on this page.

Now for the reply: Obviously I won’t (and can’t) delve into American laws. But “freedom of speech” (First Amendment) does not convince me because I somehow don’t believe that terrorist propaganda is protected by freedom of speech, probably nowhere in the world and neither in the US. Besides, we should be concerned with Wikipedia policies and guidelines here, not with the American Constitution. If Wikipedia decides not to have a certain link, it is not automatically "censorship" or "suppression of free speech". Obviously, Wikipedia does not add links indiscriminately.

My thoughts on the „right to Information“, “Freedom of Information” (a.k.a. Wikipedia is not censored):

• I think it’s a valid argument that in certain cases, danger to public safety outweighs “right for information.” (Serious) Journalists will have other means of getting their hands on the manifesto (every newspaper, magazine, TV network etc. etc. will have made its own copies already). Whether there are mirrors of the documents elsewhere on the internet is not an argument for the one or the other stance.
• The manifesto & the video do not contain objective information on the subject of the article. In fact, linking it here externally could give the undesired impression that these documents contain factual, objective information. That Breivik himself brought these things in circulation in relationship to his terror attacks is not a compulsive reason to link it here. They don’t fall under the category of links “that can/should normally be provided”. -- Yes, Wikipedia does not generally refrain itself from linking controversial or potentially offensive sites/documents, but none of the cases when this is normally done applies here. It is neither an e-book on a book’s page, nor an institution’s site on an institution’s page.
• I surmise linking this is incredibly offensive to anyone who has lost a friend or relative in the Oslo bombing or the Utoya shooting. Enough said.

Summing up objections to the analogy with other propaganda/manifestos/"hate speech" that is linked on Wikipedia: The analogy may not actually be valid. This is a manifesto of a possibly unique kind. It is propaganda material specifically designed to recruit imitators and to instruct them in detail how to commit terrorist acts. To my best knowledge, you can’t say that of any of the other works that were listed here as comparisons. So:

• Mein Kampf and Das Kapital do not endorse terrorism and do not teach you the building of bombs.
• These books are notable in itself while the Breivik manifesto is notable solely in conjunction with the Norwegian terror acts.
• Mein Kampf and Das Kapital are historical documents. They do not relate directly to present-day reality, while Breivik’s manifesto does.
• It is not totally absurd to assume that bookstores that sell Mein Kampf have a "slant to the right”; it’s also not absurd to assume that bookstores that sell Das Kapital have a slant to the left side. It’s not necessarily so, but there is a certain probability, so it’s not a self-evident assumption. Therefore, I do see potential problems with undue weight in regard to external links.

The Breivik manifesto is probably best comparable to Al Qaeda propaganda. Therefore it should probably be treated like Al Qaeda propaganda on Wikipedia (which is, as far as I can see, not linked).

Bottom line: My position is that linking these documents is not justified by WP:CENSORED, as there are good reasons why they should not be linked, and no compelling reasons why they should be linked.

I won’t argue for longer, as I have expounded my arguments extensively, but I would recommend that editors that want to re-link it do some reading in the manifesto, if they have not done it until now. It’s all fine and dandy when a majority of users votes for linking it, but you should know what you actually link.-- Corinius (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Some more remarks for @IP specifically:

- “Match factories do not promote forest fires.” – No, but a factory that sells “forest fire starter kits” does.--

- “It is responsibility of families and people themselves to use the common sense [...] and not go on a killing spree.” – According to this reasoning, no killing spree could ever have happened. Common sense says that there are certain people who object to their supposed responsibility to not go on a killing spree. The internet is anonymous. Wikipedia should take into account that it can be viewed by anybody, including the worst possible viewer. So I don't consider this 'argument' as a compelling reason to link anything.--

- I gather you regard feminists as your enemies. Well, that’s sorry, but not my problem. I don’t accuse anyone specific, or a specific group, of a potential crime.--

- On “… full scale hysteria and paranoia.”: To stay in the picture, this is a propaganda document that tells you how to rape women and instructs how to go about it. I don’t think it’s hysterical or paranoid to call this morally offensive and dangerous. The risk of becoming the victim of a “rape”, i.e. terror act personally is minimal, but nevertheless I find sites that uncritically distribute it on the internet dangerously careless and offensive. I would not think otherwise when I weren’t a resident of Europe. If the document would call for the murder of random Australian Aborigines, I would still find it offensive and dangerous to a such a strong degree that I would object to linking it on Wikipedia.-- Corinius (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this, but this kind of moralizing is not what Wikipedia is about. Yes, some overwrought copyright fanaticism has held up Wikisource's s:Industrial Society and Its Future for months, but the point is: we house such material, and we are wise to do so. Those concerned about its effect are missing the point. If neutral organizations fail make information like this publicly available, then it will be distributed by non-neutral organizations - i.e. anti-Islamic organizations. Gaining access to the "banned material" will become a sort of initiation, creating a tribal bond of friendship among those willing to find it, and a common sense of exaggerated persecution that Breivik himself had so well. I don't know the local laws, but my guess is that if Norway had just let him burn a few Korans in front of the local mosque, he might have satisfied his urges that way.

It's true that the manifesto contains a surprising amount of bomb-making material, but paranoia about it misses the main point we can draw from Breivik's bombing: even a carefully and competently executed bomb-making plot with the best design involves very little refinement beyond the pre-Net days when people swapped physical surplus copies of the TM 31-210 Improvised Munition Handbook, requires no chemicals that are not commonly available, as much as an ordinary person can afford, and did less damage than some of the better-known mass knifings. The fact is, despite endless paranoid efforts at censorship and limiting chemical availability, this djinni is already out of the bottle, has been for a long time, and there's simply no worse that it can get than it already is. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well knives can be used by almost anybody as well as matches and nevertheless they are sold publicly. If people would think about worst possible user and just on account of that ban and censor everything they find threatening then mankind would still be living in the wooden age, meaning that they would be collecting twigs and using them to collect and eat termites.

And I am certain that this compendium will be entered as evidence material on Breivik's trial, and all evidence must be displayed publicly since in a democratic countries there are no secret trials. There are some closed trial sessions but all evidence is publicly displayed.93.138.150.106 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Kitchen knives and matches have various uses, and primarily civil ones. A terrorist propaganda manual has only one use, not a civil one.

And let the public display of evidence material be the concern of the Norwegian authorities. This makes neither an argument for nor against the inclusion of the links.-- Corinius (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that it has only one use. After all, lots of people on Wikipedia have been using it (within the primary source limitations) to help provide background for the article. Journalists and police have been using it to figure out how Breivik managed to get the material for the bomb and who his fellow-travellers might have been. But ultimately it's up to the general public, and us, to examine the philosophy and find the errors and mark them well so that people in the future will not fall into the same abysses. Wnt (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I see your point. I'm still somewhat doubtful on the question, but the consensus is clear. So thank you for your response on the topic. Corinius (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And also it should be duly noted that box of matches is by default "forest fire starter kit".93.138.10.162 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it’s not. It’s a difference when the matchbox comes with a manual on how to start forest fires and a propaganda treatise on why everyone should start forest fires.

And note that my arguments are not at all only about public safety, so you are hereby encouraged to actually read my posts and then go on to refute my arguments. For if I want to, I can contradict you another hundred times and it won’t lead anybody anywhere. Corinius (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I’ll speak my mind and say that I think the response I got is for the most part unfocused, repetitive and condescending. I find it tedious to be summarily and rhetorically accused of “censorship”, “moralizing”, and “paranoia”, when I explained my view in a much more differentiated and detailed way.

Nobody of those that replied on my posts has actually bothered to argue against my stance that it is not 'censorship' to not link the original documents in the external link section. Instead, there appeared about half a dozen broad and generic sermons that preach repetitively and somewhat arbitrarily on the “freedom of speech” (well I am sure the First Amendment protects Breivik’s political position – he’s a political prisoner! He should be set free at once!)

Suffice to say that I never suggested that “Wikipedia is a society guardian”. Also, I haven’t asked to sweepingly 'ban' this material from Wikipedia. The question at hand was about featuring these two links in the external link section of Anders Behring Breivik. It was not about inline sources or whether the material should be uploaded on Wiki Commons. If it is uploaded, there will possibly be new discussions, but I won’t be there.

@Wnt: I don’t really believe in the philosophy that making material of this specific brand easily available will automatically make it harmless and work against the intentions connected with this material, as long as the material is not presented, possibly edited, to specifically counter this intentions. The intentions, among others, are to spread it and further its distribution.--

I don’t think it accounts for everything when the organization that spreads propaganda material is neutral. And I don’t mean all propagandistic and tendentious material should never be linked or cited on Wikipedia, but that this is propaganda of an unusual aggressiveness and concreteness, due to its connection with a spectacular crime and the possibility that it can be used as a direct justification (and besides, an instruction manual) for further crimes. So I don't think it can automatically be equated with the Kaczynski manifesto case and I got somewhat tired of everyone repeating the Unabomber argument without even bothering to point out why this distinction is supposedly irrelevant.

You summarily assume that sites where this material is hosted and the users that upload this material are neutral. Do you have proof for this assumption?

„… my guess is that if Norway had just let him burn a few Korans in front of the local mosque, he might have satisfied his urges that way.” If he had wanted to (just) burn Korans, he could have done it. I don't follow this line of reasoning.--

On the implication that I "censored" the page: I have announced my proposal to delete the links on Thursday and I have waited for more than 24 hours without getting response, except some random rant from an IP that had a personal axe to grind with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for purported anti-slavicism. So, after stating my reasons on the basis of the guidelines for external links as I see them, I deleted the links. It is only since then this discussion actually gets noteworthy response. In short, I didn't just drop by and delete the links at a whim without a statement of motives.--

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a link collection. Wikipedia is also not a platform where political extremists can advertise their stuff. I hold this materials in their unedited form are political propaganda intended to recruit terrorists, and should be treated as such. Linking them as an external link elevates this material to a prominent position where it is, in my judgement, not appropriate according to Wikipedia’s principles and guidelines, and as such, their exclusion can be justified in line with WP:NOTCENSORED.

And btw, something is not “banned” just because it is not linked on Wikipedia.

Most voices have opposed my view, although there have also been one or two that supported me, and one was indecisive. The counterarguments offered have not really convinced me, but I won’t interfere any more.-- Corinius (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

1. From the beginning of Wikipedia some general rules, guidelines and practices started to form based on the consensus of the community, common sense and laws of USA whether some users agreed with them or not. One of such practice is linking to the books, manifestos, manuals and other material if there are no clear copyright issues involved.

Now if You are asking that we do something that is contrary to the well established practices of the Wikipedia it is up to You to prove to us why we should do that, the burden of proof lays on your side and it is up to You to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that putting a links to this compendium, manifesto, on the Wikipedia will start widespread terrorist recruitment and killing spree all across Europe and the world.

History has proven us so far that more people are aware of a terrorist goals and methods then the people are more capable to protect themselves and their families, as well as to prepare themselves, against terrorist attacks.

2. On Wikipedia 24 hours or even 48 hours sometimes isn't always enough to reach a consensus on any issue, controversial or not. Some discussions may take days or months, but this generated good response from community within few days. And Yet You chose not to wait a few days, you waited not even 24+ hours, You have waited 23 hours and 1 minute and then dismissed my argument as a random rant completely ignoring my point that works of two man who have obviously in their works used hate speech against Croats and Slavs are not banned in Croatia or any other Slavic country. Contrary to that, their works are read and analyzed and critically revalued.

3. Posting your intentions, getting no response; or getting just one or two responses; within 23, plus 1 minute, hours and then proceeding with something that is contrary to well established practices on Wikipedia is not called discussion.

4. The fact that some use IP address to edit content on Wikipedia, or discuss matter should never be used as a badge of shame nor it should be used to tag someone implicitly or explicitly as a vandal.

5. And with my "knives" and "matches" analogies You have failed, intentionally or unintentionally, to see my point: all stuff contrary to it's intended good purpose can, and unfortunately often is, be used for some bad purposes as well. And putting links of this compendium on Wikipedia has a good purpose: when people are aware of extremists and terrorist views, goals and methods as well as their lack of regard toward civilian life, democracy and freedom then people are turned away from them rather then rallied to them.93.138.190.164 (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I was not going to challenge the general principles of Wikipedia (and I won’t, and besides this would not be the right place) and I have never denied that the “burden of proof” is on my side and have accordingly tried to present arguments for my view.

2. I just noticed I was indeed mistaken with the time. But the point I wanted to make is that I acted on good faith. It was rash in hindsight but then, it wasn't so clear. And I would not have dismissed your first post if you had put some more focus in it. But you seemed much more concerned with telling the world about the evils of Marx and Engels than with the matter brought up by me.-- Besides, I have since then repeatedly pointed out that I see critical differences between this case and Marx, Engels, Hitler & Kaczynski. But no need to repeat that discussion.

3. I would have neither suggested nor made the edit if I had seen it as contrary to Wikipedia’s principles. So again, I was bold, and acted on good faith.-- Btw, you could have reverted my edit yourself. Actually, I already wondered why nobody ever did it.

4. I am not prejudiced against IP users, and I never accused you of vandalism, not even implicitly. I did, however, not know which IP posts were by the same person or from different users.

5. I see the point you want to make, but I think the knife/matches "analogy" is a bad way to make that point, and you somewhat overstressed it.

Finally: The matter is settled, there’s a clear consensus, so let’s discontinue this feud. Corinius (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't any feud. Just discussion over the matter should such material be linked. Your, and certainly it wasn't just your concerns, were taken and evaluated very seriously: logically, legally, morally, historically and with common sense.

And finally, we believe that Your as well as the intentions of others were good and Your concerns legitimate, that is why we all gave our perspective through the variety of angles over the issue.93.139.168.22 (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)