Jump to content

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Afghana~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 24 July 2011 (→‎Why the Facebook Page/PDF is Not WP RS and Christian status is dubious: commenting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Known to police

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

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

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

Pure unsourced speculation

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

I think events are outstripping your criticism, and will continue to do so. We Americans are used to this sort of thing, alas.--Brad Patrick (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted. Norwegian media have now identified the suspect, presumably since international media have already done so. --Xover (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested deletion

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

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

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

Löschen

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

Not quite factual...

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

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

Social media

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

Wait until the WP:RS report on them before we mention anything. This is a WP:BLP no matter how despicable the actions.--Cerejota (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His twitter is still up as of this date, but his facebook was quickly taken down ... by facebook?

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

Dellort somewhere else

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

Delete: Not a biographical entry

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

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

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

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

Suggested redirect

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

WP:BLP1E is not a general prohibition, but one that is to be taken seriously. Due to the recent nature of the event, I suggest we wait. There is plenty of precedent for this, such as Ajmal Kasab.--Cerejota (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see how this could be any different from 2010 Stockholm bombings or the school shootings in Finland. None of these have separate articles about the perpetrators. --hydrox (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That could be true, but my point is that in conflicting precedent, lets wait. There is no deadline.--Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to merge this content into 2011 Norway attacks, you should propose a merge and have a general discussion about it. If you feel this articles doesn't meet BLP1E, please take it to WP:AFD. Edit summaries are no place for a discussion. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the amount of precedent is enough. --hydrox (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the amount of precedent (see Timothy McVeigh, Seung-hui Cho, etc.) is enough---but that precedent is to not merge and to keep this article separate, quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. —Lowellian (reply) 03:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, the article was taking a worrying developments. It had gossip like stuff (ie. stuff using someone's Facebook profile as source, while there seems to be no indication that this is the perpetrator's Facebook profile or just someone's who happens to have the same name). This is not at all acceptable per WP:BLP at this stage. I think it is by far best to wait and see if this individual turns out enough notable to merit his own article. Meanwhile, it is much better to go with one article for the event. --hydrox (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The problems with nasty content are solved by editing out and policing the edits. Those tools are not fo' show ya know :) Let me re-state: I say is too early to BLP1E this baby, because it could meet the John Hinckley, Jr. criteria for inclusion. I can see it coming in particular as lone-wolf seems to be the case, and because these were not just one attack, but two, in fact, two events. The complexity is there. I think a redirect might be premature.--Cerejota (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one huge difference to the 2010 Stockholm bombings and to the school shootings in Finland: he is still alive. At 32 he may live another 50 years – and most likely will remain in the news for all of those years. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only has articles only on notable topics. Biographies of living persons must adhere to to their corresponding policy. There is a rather, strong precedent from similiar events not to have articles for individuals that are notable only for one event. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. I think there is stronger case for not having article on him if he is still alive, as living individuals are more prone to damage by misinformation. --hydrox (talk) hydrox (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (edited to better respond to the previous comment)[reply]
I think the article should be separate and not merged into the other article. As evident by the AfD the subject is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 80.203.133.231, 23 July 2011

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

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

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of external links. --hydrox (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman?

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

Old blog from 2005:

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

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

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

I agree, this seems to be misinformation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Gates of Vienna – For the Record -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Fjordman but Andrew Berwick

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

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

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

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

Breivik Geofarm

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

"Called himself a nationalist"

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Facebook page is a fake!

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

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

Self-described Christian conservative

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

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

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

According to google translater's version of the reference, he joined the Johannes-losjen Søilene as a 1st degree member (apprentice) in 2008. There is no evidence of his continuing membership of the lodgeBenvenuto (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how relevant it is, but Dagbladet.no reports that his membership is confirmed by the leader of the lodge.[1] Google Translation of same page.[2] 70.174.160.216 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) John[reply]

His deleted Facebook as PDF-File

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

Can I get confirmation on this? If so, why would he plan on attacking a Labour Party event when he like 1984 as a book? Could be used as a good source if proven real. --BurtaciousD (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I myself know right wingers that read the book "1984" as a manifesto against communism. For them (to them?) Labour Party is a kind of communism. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ot, but it in fact is a manifesto against communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.82.150 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well, the [[Labour Party (Norway)|Labour Party] is shown to be democratic socialist, which is exactly what 1984 suggests. If he is that into political analysis and such, he would know this. Or maybe hes just literarily challenged. --BurtaciousD (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook public page HTML backup

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

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

2001 arrest?

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

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

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

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

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

Freemason

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

Freemason Andreas Behring http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/prosjekt/frimurer/losjer/soilene/medlem/80189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.38.124 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The freemason member list: http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/prosjekt/frimurer/losjer/soilene/medlemmer/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.38.124 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate section

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

Unreliable sources

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

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

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

Attention-seeker succeeds

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

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

Merger proposal

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

Edit request to include some background on his interests

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

Changing from semi->protected request Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement with the English Defence League

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

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

Oppose - coatracking an uninvolved group with a mass murder. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. It's not that he posted on a website which also hosted some articles about the EDL: Breivik himself wanted to set up groups in support of it or according to its model. See for example this that he wrote:
"I have on some occasions discussed with SIOE [Stop Islamification Of Europe] and EDL and recommended them to use conscious strategies.
The tactics of the EDL is now out to "entice" an overreaction from Jihad Youth / Extreme-Marxists something they have succeeded several times already. Over The reaction has been repeatedly shown on the news which has booster EDLs ranks high.
This has also benefited BNP. WinWin for both.
But I must say I am very impressed with how quickly they have grown but this has to do with smart tactical choice by management.
EDL is an example and a Norwegian version is the only way to prevent Flash / SOS to harass Norwegian cultural conservatives from other fronts. Creating a Norwegian EDL should be No. 3 on the agenda after we have started up a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution.
The agenda of the Norwegian cultural conservative movement over the next 5 years are therefore:
1 Newspaper with national distribution
2 Working for the control of several NGOs
3 Norwegian EDL"
Translation is from [2]. You can look at a machine translation of his posts if you want to see it for yourself: [3]. See also url.com/3b9zfzf, [4], [5] (that last one's from Craig Murray, a former British ambassador). I think your use of the word "coatracking" is an assumption of bad faith on your part and I am due an apology. Breivik's background and political views are central to the whole affair. We don't shy away from saying he was a former member of the FrP because of the risk of promoting guilt by association: we trust our readers a bit more than that! 82.32.186.24 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just a translation by this left-wing website. Since you're a native speaker of Norwegian you can check out the original for yourself at http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/. The BBC is reporting that "Anders Behring Breivik left racist, extremist right-wing comments along with fellow anti-Muslims, and there were attempts to start up Norwegian satellite groups in support of the English Defence League", and they're a mainstream news source cited thousands of times in Wikipedia articles. I don't think it's therefore relevant that the specific translation I quoted is from a left-wing website. They are far from the only ones reporting this stuff and the article already links to http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/, it just doesn't give readers a summary of what he says there. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to rely on third party sources to explain his views, not lift them from his postings. See WP:PRIMARY. TFD (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Bangs head against brick wall* "There are also citizens' websites like Document.no, where Anders Behring Breivik left racist, extremist right-wing comments along with fellow anti-Muslims, and there were attempts to start up Norwegian satellite groups in support of the English Defence League." from the BBC. Please read the entire section before replying. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That quote should be good enough - the problem is that this BBC text is so murky and ambiguous ('there were attempts') that you don't know what to make of it. A Google translate of this Norwegian source [6] is much clearer (!): [7]
Behring Breivik said he was active in FpU and Progress Party for years, arguing that he "contributed to their success." He left the party to continue working with what he claimed was to "help develop / promote the political doctrines abroad"
Support for EDL
Breivik has also expressed support for the British English Defense League, a very radical organization on the right side in England. He has also meant that one should build up a similar organization in Norway.
Even though this is mechanically translated text, I think that given the source gave it its own subheading, and in combination with the BBC source, it is worth mentioning. It makes his admiration for the EDL sound like more than just a passing comment in a thousand Usenet posts - whether that's true or not, I'm not so sure about, but that's up to the sources to decide, not us. Wnt (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill

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

Freemason

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

What possible relevance does it have? WWGB (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for Wikipedia to determine relevance, simply to document what is being reported. It may or may not be directly relevant to his actions. That's not the point. The man's background, interests and views are eminently notable and of legitimate interest to a great many people. For that reason the Wikipedia article on this man needs to include his interests, his political views and activities, his religious views, and all the other material he makes available to the world through his posts at http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/ (e.g. that he's a millionaire and that he's friends with prominent people in the Norwegian web and social networking industry) and on Facebook. Numerous sources have been provided in various sections on this talk page, but due to the semi-protection only a somewhat arbitrary subset of details about the man are currently included in the article. 82.32.186.24 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not for Wikipedia to determine relevance, simply to document what is being reported. " -> agreed. There is far too much editorialising here at Wikipedia. Our job is merely to report what external sources cite as being relevant/significant information, in an NPOV fashion. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative?

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

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

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

Israel

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

His political stance is apparently anti-Islamic, pro-Israel, economically liberal and socially conservative. All this is highly relevant, since many people and movements in the Western world share his political stance, e.g. the Tea Party. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a fine example of guilt by association... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your very own perception. I call it accuracy and completeness of coverage. Had the perpetrator turned out to be Muslim, as e.g. Fox News was desperately hoping for, do you honestly believe we wouldn't have covered his political stance to the fullest extent allowed for by the available reliable sources? So why on earth would we start censoring this article for political correctness? To protect the sensitivities of people who share his political stance? Most certainly not. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the "pro-Israel" was laid on a little heavy. Mention it, yes, but no need to be repetitious. Namely, the second "pro-Israel" is a description of document.no - but we have an article about that site, and I don't see the need to pick out two characteristics of it to put here. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proper encyclopedic reason to exclude a concise and straightforward mention of document.no's political direction as it relates to Breivik's. There are plenty of POV reasons, but they are irrelevant. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

91/0/0 norsk op

One section of the article says:

Breivik studied at the Oslo Commerce School, and is described by newspaper Verdens Gang as considering himself a nationalist.[5] He is also a former member of the Progress Party (FrP) and its youth wing FpU. According to the current FpU leader Ove Vanebo, Breivik was active early in the 2000s, but he left the party as his viewpoints became more extreme.[12] He identified himself in a multitude of social media services as an admirer of, among others, Winston Churchill,[13] Max Manus,[13] and Dutch politician Geert Wilders, whose political party he described as "the only true party for conservatives".[14] Breivik has also identified himself as "pro-gay and pro-Israel".[15] On Twitter he quoted philosopher John Stuart Mill, "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests".[5][16]
Behring Breivik is a Freemason of the Johannes-lodge St. Olaus T.D. Three Pillar. (Johannes-losjen St. Olaus T.D. Tre Søiler).
He is reported to have written many posts on the website document.no,[17] described as "Islam-critical and Israel-friendly".[18] He also attended meetings of "Documents venner" (Friends of Document), affiliated with the website.[19] Dagens Næringsliv writes that Breivik sought to start a Norwegian version of the Tea Party movement in cooperation with the owners of document.no, but that they, after expressing initial interest, ultimately turned down his proposal because he did not have the contacts he promised.[20]
Document.no has compiled a complete list of comments made by Breivik on its website between September 2009 and June 2010.[21]
91/0/0 norsk op

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

I was apparently viewing a cached version. JIP | Talk 17:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that too. Apparently, it was part of the source text, but was removed by JonFlaune. Bypassing the browser cache helped. utcursch | talk 17:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breivik's report of conversion to Catholicism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page protection

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

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

Done. Prodego talk 18:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unless there is a pressing need we try not to protect pages. I am sure the page will be safe in an hour. Prodego talk 18:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll defer to your judgment. If it doesn't work out, protection is just an admin click away. --87.78.20.194 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, done. Prodego talk 18:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased Mill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name confirmation and confession

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

Occupation: Farmer

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

Of course, that statement would require a proper source, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation, and there is no factual evidence that he was actually behind the bombings. Nymf hideliho! 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that he has confessed the bombings to his lawyer. Also, Norwegian television showed interviews with his former neighbors on the countryside, stating that they never saw him out fertilizing the soil. Also, a policeman stated that the soil was neglected and that there was no notable traces of manure there. Awaiting further reports. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rampage

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

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

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

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

Redirected

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

WP:BLP1E clearly states this is not true of all cases, and you have done this redirect of over more than three consensus discussions. If you persist in ignoring community consensus, you do so at your own peril.--Cerejota (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even an ambiguous issue; article level consensus does not override policy, especially BLP policy. --Errant (chat!) 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and consensus can decide when WP:BIO1E applies and when it doesn't. In any case, I don't believe that policy does not forbid us from having articles in those situations: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I see this situation as very similar to Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. It would be silly for us to not have an article on McVeigh. NW (Talk) 20:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the redirect and protected the page for BLP violations. Happy for this to be reviewed at the noticeboard level, however communioty consensuus is that in the situation where an individual is known purely for one event, and the information can be adequately handled in that article, then we do not have a standalone biography. The event occurred yesterday, it is hard to make any judgement on whether this event deserves a biography at this stage. --Errant (chat!) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with your action, but i'm willing to wait at this point. I give it a week. SilverserenC 21:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy quoted (ONEEVENT) says:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.

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

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

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

Andrew Berwick and his 1500 page manifesto

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

Also see links above at Not Fjordman but Andrew Berwick.

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

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

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

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

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

Has the manifesto been covered and discussed extensively in reliable sources? Did you include those reliable sources in the article? If no to either of them, then an article on the manifesto is not appropriate. SilverserenC 00:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Norwegian media has reported about the manifest for some hours, but it is so massive that no thorough analysis has yet to be made. But a mention of the manifest is in it place. New York Times link. Rettetast (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

However, the problem with paraphrasing and quoting from a primary source is that you are still interpreting which things are important in it. It does depend on what exactly you are trying to say in the article, but for the most part, we should leave the manifesto alone until it is covered elsewhere. SilverserenC 01:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Afghana, you are incorrect. A primary source can only be used in conjunction with a secondary or primary source that is verifiably establishing notability. Generally such sources make primary sources unnecessary, as they themselves will provide us with paraphrases or quotes. A problem with using primary sources at all is that often editors do not have the discipline to understand the difference, and use the primary source to further original research and synthesis, sometimes unwittingly. For example, say, a notable corporate startup is mentioned in many industry journals and press, but there is little information about its product line outside of its corporate website, and what products are mentioned are mentioned only as brand names, with little details beyond functionality. In that case, the primary source (website) can be used to fill out the information on products mentioned in secondary or tertiary sources, but not all products of the company. If you need further clarification feel free to drop me a message or ask at WT:OR.--Cerejota (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree and believe the section should remain, however, I will heed WP:CONSENSUS and remove it for now. --Afghana [talk] 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more on his background

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

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

Fake support groups/accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fundamentalist Christian comment is from a secondary source, not from the primary source of his Facebook page. Our job is not to argue with valid secondary sources. However, in terms of primary sources, his manifesto does state he views himself as a Christian. However, once again, we will not be using primary sources until secondary sources make them authoritative. --Afghana [talk] 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/07/23/nyheter/innenriks/terror/utoya/17425781/
  2. ^ http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2011%2F07%2F23%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fterror%2Futoya%2F17425781%2F&act=url
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&oldid=441097189"