Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

Christian Terrorism

Christian apologists are trolling wikipedia, but this guy wanted to kill "cultural marxists" who were, as he saw it, threatening the purity of European Christendom and European culture in general. His religious beliefs cannot be separated from his hatred of Islam nor his zionism. His manifesto mentions 'Christ' 500 times in the first 200 pages of his 1,518 page manifesto. He voted for only the most conservative clergy in church elections. He said he considered himself "100% Christian." He was a member of "The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon", which was allegedly founded in London in April 2002, as a "re-founding" of the millenia-old Christian crusader organisation. His video celebrated crusaders as heroes. Just because you disagree with his beliefs does not mean he's not a Christian. Just because he's crazy, doesn't dismiss the reality that he is a Christian. And his Christianity isn't peripheral. It's essential to understand what his motives were. It doesn't matter what you think Jesus "actually" taught. Also, just because he was fine with agnostics who didn't get in the way, doesn't make this any less of an example of Christian terrorism.

"The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination, according to Norwegian and American officials familiar with the investigation." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24oslo.html?_r=3&pagewanted=3&partner=rss&emc=rss Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WP:RS status of the claimed Manifesto

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

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

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

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

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

Nope, there is no doubt at all. He sent out the manuscript himself and reliable sources refer to him as the author. Sources such as the NRK[1] and numerous others. Where are your sources for the alleged "doubt"? JonFlaune (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"Norwegian police are verifying if twin attack suspect Anders Behring Breivik was the author of a manifesto and a video which appeared on the web, Norwegian media said. [...] The document, headlined "A European Declaration of Independence," is written by Andrew Berwick, but the author says in the text this is an anglicized version of Anders Breivik. In the 1,500-page document the author expresses his extreme anti-Muslim political views and describes the attacks which are to be carried out." [2] JonFlaune (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

2083. A European Declaration of Indepence - ebook

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

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

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

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.

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)

Video Games

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

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

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

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

3.26 Avoiding suspicion from relatives, neighbours and friends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to Pamela Geller and Daniel Pipes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Member of the Church of Norway?

External sources, and thus this article, frequently describe him as a "Christian", which is a bit vague. What denomination was he? From what I can gather (my Norwegian is far from fluent) he was actually a member of the Church of Norway. Can anyone confirm/dispel this with reliable external sources? --Mais oui! (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He says that he was baptized Church of Norway at 15, but believes that Norway should have a "reverse-reformation" and go back to Catholicism, detesting the perceived informality and progressiveness of Protestant churches in Norway. This is all in his manifesto, which can easily be found online on PDF form on google. 70.109.187.152 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Norway is a country where its native-born citizens are considered Christians by default, and you have to tell the government if you want to statistically not be considered a Christian. However as it makes no difference at all to daily life then not many people bother doing so. Anyway, the fact that he describes himself as a Christian makes this a moot point.--EchetusXe 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Echetus, most ethnic Norwegians are considered members of the (state) Church of Norway, and you have to do something actively to leave that church. It used to be quite difficult until recent years. JonFlaune (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So, we know that he was confirmed in the Church of Norway at the age of 15, but was he actually a practising member of that Church as an adult? Many people are baptised and confirmed in churches, but are not actually practising members of those churches as adults.--Mais oui! (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

From his 'compendium':

I have reserved 2000 Euro from my operations budget which I

intend to spend on a high quality model escort girl 1 week prior to execution of the mission.

I will probably arrange that just before or after I attend my final martyrs mass in Frogner Church.

Seems to find the ritual important, but not the conventional morality ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New York Times on Anders Behring Breivik

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

NYT on Breivik

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

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

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

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

Mirror of Breiviks manifesto and video (alleged SPAM)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contents of the Manifesto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology

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

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

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

The chapter in the manifesto lists the following sources:

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

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

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

Height

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

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

Christian, or cultural christian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a quote from his manifesto:

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

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

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

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

Here's another quote that may help add context:

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

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

Actually, this should help clear up a lot:

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

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

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

Religious section

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

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

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

Claim: Christian Fundamentalist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claim: Christian Zionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I note several blogs, such as this one[3], have been going through Breivik's online postings and noting who he had commented favourably about. (An English translation of his posts on document.no can be found here:[4]) They include, amongst others: the blogs Fjordman, Atlas Shrugs and Little Green Footballs, the writers Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer, and the groups the Progress Party of Norway, English Defence League and Stop Islamisation of Europe. A few of these are already mentioned in the article. My question is, is it acceptable to use his own writing as a source for who he approved of, or would that be original research (or potentially a violation of BLP policy)? Robofish (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Merger proposal no 5, citing WP:PERP

Citing the relevant section of policy for convenience:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Why do we need more of these discussions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove List of murderers by number of victims?

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

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

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

Fertilizer

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

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

Military service

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

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

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

The Victims

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entire section removed under dubious pretences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A modern cultural conservative (nationalist), anti-Jihad right wing alternative is emerging in Western Europe. A majority of Western European right wing groups are all anti-Islamisation and pro-Israel. They wish to include the Jews in our fight against multiculturalism and the Islamisation of Europe. Israel is at the forefront of global Jihad. If Israel falls, then all the forces currently targeting Israel (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood financed by Saudi, Iran etc.) will start to focus full heartedly on Europe."

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

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

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

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

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

"a real European hero" etc. in the introduction

The introduction includes the statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Mustihussain,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged international Knights Templar "Order"

Two new sources (Norwegian), cites from his manifesto that he claims to be part of an "international order", the "Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici" or PCCTS (Knights Templar). He claims it has 15 to 80 ordinated members, and an unknown number of "civilian" members. One of the main initiators was allegely a Serb "war hero", whom he met in Liberia. More here; [5], [6] – Bellatores (t.) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian anti-communists

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

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

Wikilinks within quotations

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

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

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

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

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

Missing info: hunting and EDL

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Nostalgikeren, 24 July 2011

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

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

Some more sources on his political beliefs

In an article in the Financial Times, it's pointed out that "he’s representative of a new type of rightwing extremism. Rather than the old neo-Nazis they are pro-Israel and driven by radical anti-Islam" (Robin Wigglesworth, "Killer personifies rise of new far-right", Financial Times, July 24, 2011[7]). JonFlaune (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Johanneswilm,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johanneswilm,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think what he means by "above" is in the section above where they disagree with the CBS reporter, and say that no, Breivik didn't think there was anything about Al Queda worthy of positive regard by Breivik. If they can find any press sources for their view, then, by all means they may have a point, but to say that their opinions outweigh a valid press source, that is POV, no? Scott P. (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Number of downloads of his manifesto

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

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

self-admitted perpetrator

why is he mentioned as self-admitted perpetrator? he is plainly a terrorist. does Wikipedia really need to use buzzwords? --Infestor (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He has not been convicted of terrorist crimes and he has not pleaded guilty of such, although his crime has been widely described as terrorism. --hydrox (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, "self-admitted perpetrator" is accurate and descriptive. "Terrorist" is the buzzword here. --99.226.73.18 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.27.123.88, 25 July 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is censorship

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

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does Joshua Normans piece qualify as an OpEd?

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

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

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manifesto as a source and other notes on sourcing.

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

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

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

2) Do not use other primary sources if secondary sources are easily available. For example, why use an unreliable primary source (birthday.no) to source the birth date when you can do it with a secondary reliable source [8].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolve with an editnotice?

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative blog describes him as Darwinian?

There have been repeated edits to the religion section describing him as a "Darwinian." The only source the editor provides is a conservative site. I've undone those edits, but I thought I would bring up the issue here in case that person wants to discuss it further. Lklusener (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Darwinism isn't a religion for a start. But no, we shouldn't be using blogs (conservative or otherwise) as sources, per WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See #Christian? --hydrox (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? It is entirely possible to be a Darwinist and a Christian at the same time. The idea that they are somehow polar opposites is largely a fiction perpetrated in US politics these days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I was replying to OP not you. --hydrox (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I misunderstood. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Incidentally the quote says, not that he believes in evolution of species, but that he believes in darwinian evolution of societies; which is actually rather different, because societies don't have DNA for inheritance. Because of that most darwinists don't really believe in darwinian evolution of societies.Teapeat (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Social Darwinism is an entirely different animal than Darwinism, Darwin himself opposed the early social-darwinists. That said, why is this even mentioned here, it is from an unreliable blog. I am sure people are going to claim all sort of things, we don't have to even consider them all. Lets stick to the RS, yeah? --Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the WP:RELIABLE policy considers self published sources as reliable sources under certain conditions, which the usage of this source meets. By any sane definition (including the wikipedia's policies) this source is a reliable source of what Breivik claims (as opposed to giving good evidence that what he claims as being true, being actually true). There is no wikipedia policy that supports its complete removal as you have done.Teapeat (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So if he claims he's born on a particular date in the Manifesto, we can quote that, but indicate that it's only a claim he makes. But if there was a secondary source, then we can write it as true. That's how self published sources are supposed to be used, as proof of claims of something, but not proof of something.Teapeat (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(As I understand it, this discussion is not about whether his manifesto is a usable source.) --hydrox (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why can we not post what the World Net Daily posted, while posting things other reliable sources report? The WND is in fact quoting from Breivik's manifesto, which is sourced on the site and on the main article. There seems to be a strange bias toward conceptualizing this guy as a "fundamentalist Christian" baselessly. He's a Darwinist and a Cultural Christian, by his own admission, and who in his manifesto goes out of his way to explain that: "Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation [sic] but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order." (reference: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=325765#ixzz1T4sv8V9x) --Ben Ammi (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In the verifiable manifesto he wrote: "'Logic' and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level." --Ben Ammi (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

Could somebody that knows how it would be pronounced please add an IPA representation of his name. Mortein | Talk 06:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

[ɑndɛʂ bɛːɾɪŋ bɾɛj'ʋiːk] in Standard Eastern Norwegian, I suppose. Might need checking. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Supposed 2100 page manifesto

This is supposed to be a 2100 page manifesto. Could someone validate? Word pad craps out while loading. www.megaupload.com/?d=NECW5J00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.64.102 (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's the formatting change from docx to pdf that changes the page count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.64.102 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE weight given to his opinions about Israel in the article

First, it is mentioned that Breivik used to write on Dokument.no which one Norwegian daily (Aftenposten) described as "anti Islamic and Israel friendly". Though Breivik participating on this site was described in many western media sources (e.g. the Telegraph or [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43874935/ this one]) it seems that the Aftenposten was among the only media sources, perhaps the single one that called it "Israel friendly". In any case, I can't see reason why not just describing the site as one which was identified with the European right wing and not more than that. As it comes to the Aftenposten, this daily was accused for anti Israeli/anti Semitic bias and not ones-see this , that and there are others as well, so mentioning what the Aftenposten called to this site seems like bad choice at least for this purpose. Second, one of the sources in the articles politics section is the Jerusalem Post, Israeli daily, which was cited for Breivik worldview here and in the other of Wikipedia related articles -describing Breivik world view as:"extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism and venomous attacks on Marxism and multi-culturalism." But the original citation was: "extreme, bizarre and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism and venomous attacks on Marxism and multi-culturalism." I fixed it already. Third, third of the politics section is dedicated for his views about Israel while in his manifesto he wrote in length about how seeing Muslims happy when American soldiers died and etc shaped his world view and especially he emphasized NATO involvement in the conflict between Serbia and Bosnia as the event that 'tipped the scales' for him. None of this in mentioned of course and the result is WP:UNDUE about Israel. It can be seen by fairly reviewing the sources that his ideological scope is much larger and is not focused on Israel but rather on war between the Western culture and the Islamic culture or cultural Marxists.--Gilisa (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, and there have been numerous attempts to remove this from the article before as well. I am removing it now for good. --hydrox (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Pay attention that this issue was discussed already on this TP and there seem to be enough editors who agree as well and in any case none of those who disagree that there is WP:UNDUE about Israel couldn't really refute it. In Breiviks mind many countries are on the right side and many on the wrong, he also mentioned Japan and S.Korea as countries from which the West should learn. Yet, no one was thinking about giving them the same weight (undue one) that was given to Israel in the article. It's quite hallucinated. --Gilisa (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But the far right wing blogs like www.pi-news.net are saying that they are pro-Irsael! --89.204.153.249 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am taking a very small step back. I think it is noteworthy that he has been described as pro-Israel by Israeli newspaper. This is notworthy because the European far right has traditionally been considered anti-Jewish, and I've seen this "change in far right ideals" noted in many other medias as well. --hydrox (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hydrox, it's not really noteworthy-it's Israeli newspaper and therefore it's natural that it would report on what can seem as most interesting for the Israeli reader.--Gilisa (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's it! None of these blogs from the far right wing claim that they are pro-Japanese or pro-Korean, but most of them claim to be pro-Israel. This is simply because they see Israel as a front-fighter at the battlefield against Islam. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So what? IP user 89.204.137.166, that's only make my point stronger, while the right wing in Europe is in part pro Israeli (unless you consider Neo Nazi or pro Nazi movements as this of the late Jörg Haider as "right")-and it's is not new, they are not pro Japanese or pro S.Korean-but the killer wad pro Japanese and pro S.Korea among many other things that his ideology is built of. That's what made him unique and emphasize why the article shouldn't elaborate about Israel or include single source, very unreliable and controversial one in regard to Jews and Israel, that unlike the others stress that the killer used to spend time on site which the source described as "anti Muslim and Israel friendly" while virtually all other major sources described the site as "anti Islamic and anti immigration"-which it's actually, because the site purpose is to focus on Europe and what happen in it, and not on Israel-regardless if there are Israel friendly users active on this site. --Gilisa (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Islamophobic Far Right (which he seems to be a fringe part of) is, afaik, actually, quite often Pro-Israel, since it tends to view Israel as an ally against Islam. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Right! Their Israel-friendliness is part of their ideology and it is an important part. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not always their ideology and in any case, it still doesn't have much to do with the killer who actually also wrote in length about Japan and Korea as "model countries" (and there is no elaboration about that here), he wrote much about Serbia and the meetings that he had with Serbian activists (it's not really mentioned in the article-though it's much more relevant than Israel to this article) or even praised Top Gears' Jeremy Clarkson for what he viewed as his national/European stand. I'm sure that Clarkson is quite unhappy with the killer praising him, but we have no intention to elaborate about that here anyway. What I suggest in short, is not to give weight to his opinions about countries or people that are not related to the event itself or to his activity in direct manner.--Gilisa (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Gilisa, you lie. Jeremy Clarkson ist criticized by Breivik, not praised. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon?Lied? you are violating here Wikipedia policies of WP:CIVIL anf WP:no personal attacks. Even if I was wrong you didn't have the right to call me liar. But I'm not [9]. Second, stop hiding behind your IP when you engage into nonconstructive editing. --Gilisa (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No Pardon at all, Gilisa. You make things worse as everybody can read that Breivik clearly criticizes Clarkson about his stance toward the flag and nationalism. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) PS: And here is what Clarkson wrote and what Breivig is criticizing: 3. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article2935442.ece

Israel only appears once in this article eventhought his pro-Christian/Israel motives are his main ideaology, along with Hate for Marxism and Multiculturalism, several individuals keep playing this pro-Israel (selectively) down. Wikipedia is not about censorship, because someone doesn't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.108.9 (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Only once? No, the word "Israel" is abundant in his manifesto. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I see that he praised Clarkson on his performances in Top Gear, perhaps he criticized him about the flag and I misunderstood it. In any case, you called me liar and this behavior consist a personal attack and you also should learn some about WP:AGF. In any case, I appreciate your endless efforts to push Israel into article it doesn't belong, but Breivik also wrote largely on Japan, South Korea, Serbia-and probably many other countries, people, historic heroes TV shows and who know what else. It is not an excuse for you or for anyone to imply that Israel or his being pro Israeli were behind the attacks.--Gilisa (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. His support for Israel is an extremely important part of his Islamophobic worldview, that needs to be discussed. 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)

An article in the Financial Times[10] from yesterday 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. Document.no is the leading pro-Israeli website in Norway, and Aftenposten is Norway's leading, and arguably most Israel-friendly (relatively speaking), newspaper. As 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."[11]

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"[12]

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"[13]

Like the European anti-muslim pro-Israeli far-right, and the far right in Israel itself, Breivik of course is critical of "leftwing Jews", stating:

"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" (Jerusalem Post)

The Jerusalem Post concludes that he

"lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism"[14]

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."[15]

I understand that "Whatever 'support' for Israel Anders Behring Breivik may have had in his abominable mind, it is not any kind of support we want" as it is said in an interview with JTA, but we do not censor information some people don't like. It is important to describe what kind of political beliefs he had. JonFlaune (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jon, thank you for meticulously assembling all those sources. They prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Breivik's "pro-Israel" stance (quotation marks due to the accurate description of it as something which isn't actually supportive of Israel, but only of its far-right wing political side) is highly relevant to his ideology. Burying this information this far down in the article does, for all intents and purposes, indeed constitute censorshop and despicable POV editing—incidentally "on behalf" of Israel's far-right wing political side. --78.35.236.221 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The photo is not neutral - change it

The main photograph in the article is in elegant suit - it glorifies Breivik. He made what he made to became famous, to became a "Hero". The photo in the article should not portrait him "aristocrat" and Übermensch - this is what he wanted us to do! Please change it to more neutral one. (es_uomikim (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Is there a free image running around out there besides that one that would serve better? WP:FAIR may be a limiting factor as to what photo may be used in the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have always been struck with this photo looking like a movie star. Other photos are not so glorious. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so if there is no other photo maybe the second one - where he poses as a shooter - is the better one? Actually he WAS a shooter rather than a movie star or a hero. The "intelligent, handsome, nice young man" self-portrait is inappropriate in what he's done. And it portraits him in a way he wanted to show himself - as a hero; let us not help him in it! (es_uomikim (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

"Christian fundamentalist" again

I believe the "Religion" section as it stands as of this writing is an accurate description of Breivik's religious beliefs. I believe the descriptor "Christian fundamentalist" is a misleading summary and does not belong in the header. I also find it rather distressing that an off-the-cuff description in a news event must stand as established even when found inaccurate in light of more accurate sources becoming available. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This was the statement you edited: "He has been described by authorities as a right-wing extremist and Christian fundamentalist." The BBC, Reuters, the New York Times, and numerous other news sources have confirmed the truth of this statement. Deputy Police Chief Roger Andresen made this statement. Please note that the article merely states that "the authorities" have described him as such, which is absolutely correct. You may disagree with the police authorities and the news sources, but your opinions cannot supersede the fact of their statements and the reporting. Lklusener (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And can you explain why this belongs in the header? Especially since that statement, in and of itself, is misleading. Furthermore, does a descriptor that "the authorities" made within the first few hours of the situation trump all information that comes out subsequently? Peter G Werner (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He is a Christian fundamentalist. Period. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, excellent fact-based argument. Has Wikipedia really become reduced to this? Peter G Werner (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's shorten it: He is a Christian. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be great! Every source agrees on this! Peter G Werner (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, that was ment to be a joke. Of course he is a fundamentalist, or radical, or extremist Christian but not an average Christian. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. The section should be based on what reliable sources consider accurate and significant, and the lead should reflect that. Currently, long quotes cherry-picked by certain editors and highly partisan websites like WorldNetDaily are being used to counter reliable sources, implying that the media is not presenting The Truth. This is against our top-level policies. The whole section needs to be rewritten. Prolog (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed WorldNetDaily as a source and have only referred directly to the "Manifesto" itself. Please don't tar me with that brush, thank you very much. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that's the information the investigation conducted by the police authorities in Norway thus far has yielded. It has been quoted in hundreds of news sources. You may disagree with their investigative work or feel that their conclusions may be rendered incorrect by forthcoming discoveries, but these are simply your opinions. If you can provide reliable sources (credible news organizations) which confirm that the description has been rendered incorrect because of further information or police work, then please share them with us. We can then edit the article.

As far as the latest press conference on Saturday was concerned, deputy police chief Roger Andresen is quoted as having said: "What we know is that he is right wing and a Christian fundamentalist.” We can only base the article on information that's been reported in the news. We can't attempt to predict or forecast the news, as it were. Lklusener (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, can you explain, preferably using a secondary RS that explains how the sources got the label wrong, what is misleading about the terminology ? I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps that would help. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I did write about this at length here: Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Religious section. So you're basically asking me to repeat myself. And as for sources, I thought it was consensus that the Manifesto was to be allowed. Breivik quite clearly describes his religious views as "moderate" and speaks somewhat negatively of Christian fundamentalism. The newspaper sources are based on *one* statement from one source made on Saturday morning that was prior to this other information that has since become available. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree he is not a christian fundamentalist, because he has described himself as a "moderate Christian", but pretty much every reliable source says he is. As Prolog said, v not truth.--Cerejota (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the other section. Nevermind then. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So basically what this all comes down to is the idea that "secondary sources trump primary ones", even when those primary sources are allowed according to stated policy and are being quoted in good faith. I think that's bullshit, but if you can show me clear policy in that regard, I guess I'll have to "obey" it. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a somewhat related question. Should we defer to the reporting of reliable sources on the manifesto or allow individual interpretations/quoting from the manifesto? Lklusener (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of interpretation. His statements in the manifesto are quite clear. I do agree that some other editors are going way overboard in quote length, however. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I asked is that someone included a passage from the manifesto in which ABB states that he hadn't asked or prayed to God for strength. But, further on in the manifesto, ABB discusses how he had prayed in preparation for his 'act', but this passage was not included. It seems to me that people will include passages that reflect their particular views and leave out those that don't. This is why I am wondering whether we should wait for reporting from reliable sources that is comprehensive and objective. Lklusener (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

why not include both the quotes about praying and not praying, to show the self-contradictions/contrast inherent in his own reports? --Ben Ammi (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how the quotes about praying have any direct relevance to the matter of whether he could be considered a moderate vs fundamentalist Christian. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That was only an example. There is an entire section where he talks about how God serves as a protective shield for him, about "battle verses", and taking up violence in defense of Christendom. He quotes extensively from the Bible. The passages included thus far only cast him as a 'cultural Christian.' In the section starting from pg. 1327, he talks in very personal terms about how the Bible and his faith motivate his actions.

If you are going to include the passages about cultural Christianity, please include these more 'faith-based' passages as well to provide a balanced perspective. Lklusener (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When he says "I have not yet felt a need to pray to God for strength", that's pretty indicative of one's commitment. Praying to God is usually the first thing a Christian does to become a Christian. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So his start of praying was a sign of radicalisation. Please include this. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

pg. 1460: "I prayed for the first time in a very long time today. I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail. He must ensure that I succeed with my mission and as such; contribute to inspire thousands of other revolutionary conservatives/nationalists; anti-Communists and anti-Islamists throughout the European world."

pg. 1344: "I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing mewith the intention to stop and/or kill." Why wouldn't you include these passages as well to provide a balanced perspective? Why ignore these passages? Lklusener (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He believes he is a Knight Templar on a crusade against Islam in Europe. If that isn't fundamentalist... As said by others, a large amount of reliable sources describe him as a Christian fundamentalist. I believe that carries more weight than whether he considers himself to be "moderate". JonFlaune (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, Clive Williams notes in the The Australian 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".[16]

JonFlaune (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should what newspapers say carry more "weight"? Especially when newspapers are simply in a loop of endlessly repeating one very early quote. And if anything, his Freemasonry/Knights Templar interests, in other words, esoteric Christianity, go against the term "fundamentalist". Peter G Werner (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if we're going to say that early preliminary assessments are written in stone, I can find verifiable reliable sources that say 9000 people were killed in the 911 WTC attacks! Peter G Werner (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources stating he was not a Christian fundamentalist? If you have sources describing him as an esoteric Christian instead and contesting the description as fundamentalist, I have no problem using a different description. But we cannot rely on editor's personal views. JonFlaune (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a more in depth source.[17] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To who ever is unbolding the text in the lede

Please read WP:BOLDTITLE. Since both the pseudonym and the name of the manifesto redirect here, it is customary to also bold them in the lede, to indicate topicality. Please do not revert.--Cerejota (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

quoting from primary source

What you people are doing is exactly what is not allowed. We can, for example, use the primary source material to get biographical information that is relevant. What we cannot do is quote extensively and engage in original research and synthesis (look for the links above), as these editors are doing.--Cerejota (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we wait for and defer to the reporting of reliable sources on the manifesto, instead of allowing individual interpretations/quoting from the manifesto?

The reason I'm asking is that someone included a passage from the manifesto in which ABB states that he hadn't asked or prayed to God for strength. But, further on in the manifesto, ABB discusses how he had prayed in preparation for his 'act', but this passage was not included. It seems to me that people will include passages that reflect their particular views and leave out those that don't. This is why I am wondering whether we should wait for reporting from reliable sources that is comprehensive and objective. Lklusener (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a more accurate assessment of Breivik's beliefs is likely to come out over the next several days and weeks as secondary sources are able to pour over the Manifesto and other primary sources. However, I'm concerned as to how slavishly we have to stick to police chief Roger Andresen's initial off the cuff description. Do we have to wait until its reported in the media that Norwegian officials come forward and say "Oh, he's not a Christian fundamentalist. My bad." Because that might not happen. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ben Ammi, I believe you were the person who included the passage about ABB not praying or asking God for strength. I apologize if I'm wrong. But, as I stated earlier, later on in the manifesto, he talks about praying during the preparation for the attack, but you forgot to include that passage.

Also, if you're going to include passages where he discusses cultural Christianity, you should also add passages in which he is more forthright about his own religious beliefs such as this one (and also others where he actually quotes Biblical verses in support of violence - I can provide references):

(pg. 1330): "The Bible tells us that we are now all good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Whether we want to face up to it or not, we are all living in a war zone as a result of the curse of Adam and Eve that is still in full operation on this earth. Anyone of us at anytime can come under human or demonic attack. The daily news will prove that to you without any shadow of a doubt. Each Christian must now make their own personal decision on all of this. You can either choose to learn how to rise up in the power of your Lord and Saviour and learn how to become a true warrior in the Lord, or you can continue to keepyour head in the sand and oppressor after oppressor keep beating you down. The choice is yours." Lklusener (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm not Ben Ammi. I'm kind of "in the middle" in wanting to quote the manifesto, but not so extensively as BA does. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Ben Ammi had replied to this thread earlier, but his response is now gone. But, as I said, if you're going to include the passages about cultural Christianity, please make sure to also include the passages where he talks more forthrightly about his religious motivations (such as the one I quoted above) and actually quotes Biblical verses to support his violent actions (I can provide page numbers if it will be of help). Lklusener (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What links? It's very hard to understand without context. --hydrox (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess all these reverts are. I'm going to revisit this tomorrow morning with fresh eyes. Hopefully other parties will have cooled down a bit too. Really, there's no need to either get rid of all sourcing from the manifesto, nor quote from it at extensive length. Moderation, please! Peter G Werner (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain. My fear is that I will wake up tomorrow and see him described as an atheist/agnostic/Darwinist who loathed Christianity, as has already been attempted. Lklusener (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there is, or has been, a bias toward representing this confused individual as a "white taliban" / "Christian killer" esp. in such a way that it seems derogatory to even "mainstream" Christianity is clear. He also is clearly a Darwinist, has never denied evolution, and moreover most Christians are Darwinists.--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain and I am sorry to say this but it is a fact: This guy is WHITE and a KILLER and a CHRISTIAN. You wont change facts. --89.204.137.166 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What an unwarranted outburst, kind anonymous user. You won't present or misrepresent the (alleged) facts in such a way that it suggests misleading things about Christians, religious people and/or Norwegians in general. I should ask: why does it offend you to report in the article that ABB was a Darwinist? Doesn't it fit into your preconceived notions of who he is? He's apparently a Norwegian who praises certain secular and certain Christian values, not at all rejecting Darwinism or science. He's not a redneck. Moreover, the suggestions offered in earlier forms of the article were vile in regards to Christians. He may be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he necessarily killed in the name of Christ. There are Muslims who kill for non-Islamic reasons, too. And Atheists who kill for non-Atheistic reasons, but rather for say political reasons, or whatever. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustrations, but he does speak fervently about his religious beliefs, even describing himself as a "soldier of Jesus Christ." (I've quoted the passage below) He also states that he is a moderate Christian in other parts of the manifesto. Let's include those passages and also those in which he talks about his faith in personal terms. Or better yet, let us defer to reporting from reliable secondary sources on his manifesto rather than relying on individual interpretations and quoting, which seem to vary so widely.

pg 1329: God will anoint you with his power to go into battle.

If you are operating under a full surrender with God the Father, and walking in all of God's ways and staying out of any serious sins and transgressions against Him - then the next thing you will need to fully realise is that God will now anoint you with His power if you are forced to go into battle with your enemy. The Bible tells us that we are now all good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Whether we want toface up to it or not, we are all living in a war zone as a result of the curse of Adam and Eve that is still in full operation on this earth. Anyone of us at anytime can come underhuman or demonic attack. The daily news will prove that to you without any shadow of adoubt.

Each Christian must now make their own personal decision on all of this. You can either choose to learn how to rise up in the power of your Lord and Saviour and learn how to become a true warrior in the Lord, or you can continue to keep your head in the sand and oppressor after oppressor keep beating you down. The choice is yours." Lklusener (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

His religious beliefs, particularly his own interpretations and descriptions thereof, should indeed be included in the article, along with his (contrasting?) views on Darwinism, as well as his liberal definition of what a "Christian" is: "As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way."--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We should include the passages in which he talks about his religious motivations and describes himself as a "soldier of Jesus Christ" and those in which he talks about cultural Christianity and other definitions of being Christian. Thus far, you've only posted passages that reflect the latter views. If I quoted his words in the religion section, wherein he describes himself as a "soldier of Jesus Christ", would you edit it out? Lklusener (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not object to that / edit that out. Hopefully we/I may also add pertinent, short selections from his words concerning Darwinism as well as his definition of what a Christian is. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Could I f.ex add this section (same as quoted in above message): "As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way." I consider it to be a very illuminating quote, worthy of being represented in the article alongside quotes such as those/that suggested by Lklusener. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I intend to adhere to this message from the top-level editors and will refrain from quoting from the manifesto:

"Attention editors

Please note that the Anders Behring Breivik "manifesto" (2083 - A European Declaration of Independence) is considered a primary source, and its use must adhere to the relevant Wikipedia policy. In short, editors are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate his manifesto. Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source."

We are not permitted to synthesize different passages from the document. I will wait for further direction. Lklusener (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To synthesize=to quote? Or am I missing something? --Ben Ammi (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully reasonable proposal

I am generally weary of including information not in secondary or tertiary sources, but I can see that a good argument has been made for inclusion of primary source material. It is also clear to me that this is a discussion that we will have for the life of this article, which will be long.

So my suggestion is that we create a separate talk sub-page for Manifesto issues.

In that talk page, we would try to discuss any and all inclusions of primary source material, and subject them to the test set out for inclusion (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:BLP, WP:OR etc). We would then discuss and determine the value of the addition, ensure it is not OR or SYNTH, search for secondary sources who say the same, etc.

I think this way we can channel the discussion better, have a centralized discussion, and have a more solid and defendable consensus, rather than the edit war we have now. How that sound?--Cerejota (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I second this proposal. --Ben Ammi (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the PCCTS and Religion sections are starting to look much better. Neutral and agreeable doesn't necessarily indicate truthfulness, but so far so good. More revelations and new info from the courts etc will probably be a boost to the article's integrity.--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a rather ingenious albeit unusual proposal. I have never seen such implemented – all articles I know have one talk page. I am doutful as whether the sub-talkpage would see enough participation, but I am anyway "in" if this proposal is implemented. --hydrox (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of articles do this, mostly to collect sourcing, for GA/FA, or for complex merger discussions. A box is placed on top, and new discussions are quickly closed and redirected.--Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Debate regarding inclusion or exclusion of passage from Breivik's Manifesto regarding his praise of Al Queda

A question has arisen as to whether or not a passage from Breivik's Manifesto regarding his praise of Al Queda should be referenced in the article. Some feel that Breivik's admiration of Al Qaeda's organizational system (and by implication, his desire to emulate this in his own organization) is noteworthy and worthy of inclusion in the article. Others feel that by including this reference, the Wikipedia readership might somehow be "mislead" by a "skewed" reference that somehow is irrelevant or "unduly weighted". As has been requested earlier in the Breivik article's talk page, please do not remove this cite from the article until after consensus has been reached in this RfC. Scott P. (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, David Duke went to Tehran to conference with holocaust-deniers and draw inspiration therefrom, it's not impossible that ABB drew inspiration from and found positive aspects of Al Qaeda to emulate. Perhaps he considers their "freedom-fighting tactics" emulatable for the purpose of being applied to a much different cause? I will have to read the pages in question closer before adding my final thoughts on this particular. Could you direct us to the pages?--Ben Ammi (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

scottperry is unfortunately edit warring. he has breached the 3rr policy several times, and starts new threads about this issue over and over again. please see the thread "breivik's praise of bin laden's organization abilities is noteworthy, speaks of the man's ultimate goals".-- mustihussain (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets focus on the content and not the editor. I already warned him of his 3RR violation. He cannot edit this article again for 24 hours or face a block.--Cerejota (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thus the RfC. Others have violated the 3rr rule too on this one. Please let the RfC take its course. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

who? please name another user who has violated this rule on this issue.-- mustihussain (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User Johanneswilm did. I am the one trying to get fresh voices here and to follow WP:Policy via this RfC. Others are vandalizing this talk page by deleting pertinent conversations on this topic. Please see the purple section above that was deleted. Please be civil, all. Scott P. (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Really doesn't matter who else. He did it. If others did it has no bearing on his behavior nor does it excuse it.--Cerejota (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. Thus this RFC. To take this debate away from ad-hominem attacks, stop the talk page vandalism, and to refocus it on the facts of the article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What talk page vandalism?--Cerejota (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not by you, but please see my comment that begins with This Edit below. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question - What are secondary sources saying about this topic? Are they considering this significant enough for mention, using the argument you are making? We must be careful when using primary material not to engage in original research, which is what you introduction to this RfC sounds like. We engage in verifiability, not truth, and we also focus on the relevant according to the reliable sources.--Cerejota (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Answer The secondary source cite from CBS news as listed with the cite states nearly verbatim exactly what is in the cite itself, thus verifiability. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Verifiability of controversial claims requires more than one source, that is reliable, are independent of each other and of the subject, and say the same thing. I have done a cursory search, and have found none. In addition, the CBS source doesn't support your claim that "his desire to emulate this in his own organization" is implied by his admiration of their methods in his manifesto. Since he makes many claims, we cannot make original research picking and choosing them. We should highlight what the sources verifiably highlight. This doesn't seem to be the case with al-qaeda. The sources are simply not there.--Cerejota (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources are only required in controversial claims. This claim is uncontroversial. In fact multiple editors themselves, who are protesting this cite have noted that it does amount to praise of Al Qaeda and do not deny that fact. The only controversy about the inclusion of this claim is the fact that it might point to a parallel between Breivik's motives and Al Qaeda's. I feel that perhaps some anti-Islamic folks might feel that such a parallel is somehow irreligious or just plain wrong, and wish to censor out anything from the article that might suggest such a parallel, despite the fact that it is in the Manifesto, and it is supported by a secondary source. The existence of Breivik's praise for Al Qaeda in his Manifesto is not controversial. Only what the existence of this praise might make people think seems to be at issue. I say, our readers are smart enough to think for themselves, without having to have this important fact censored from them. Scott P. (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And please, by the way, please stop vandalizing this page! Scott P. (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What talk page vandalism ? Provide a diff. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit by User Hydrox selectively deleted (supposedly archived) pertinent discussions regarding this question from this talk page. This appears to me to have been vandalism, as this is not the normal archiving procedure for talk pages and the result of this "archive" seems to me as though it might "skew" this RfC. Scott P. (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, the talk page was reaching 50+ topics. I archived about 50% oldest of these, assuming the editors would salvage them from the archive if they saw fit. This is really bad procedure, I know. Please believe me I did not mean to tamper with the discussion, and I am truly sorry for any inconvenience, but I felt something had to done to keep the talk page readable. --hydrox (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Also, the diff that you linked to does NOT include any unconventional archiving. Closed discussion can be archived, if anything. Did you see that note urging editors to read closed discussions from the archives before opening new ones? --hydrox (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize too then, I've just never seen a talk section archived any other way than simply removing the oldest discussions at the top of the page only, and not selectively removing various sections, not based on their chronological order. Apology accepted. Scott P. (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with mentioning that he admired al-Qaeda for its military organization. But, not in the extent it used to be. I moved it under "influences", as surely he did not mean to say that he politically admires al-Qaeda, only that their organizational abilities was an example for him. --hydrox (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hydrox, thanks for finally allowing this ref into the article, but still, I think that we should not be afraid that our audience might draw the conclusion that both Breivik and Al Qaeda are organizations that are simply politically structured around a strong element of fear. The Third Reich was politically structured around this element. Al Qaeda is structured around this element, and apparently Breivik believes that his organization should also be structured like this. To try to somehow "shield" our readers from this possible conclusion, by deleting or "hiding" the cite seems to me to be un-helpful. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hydrox, I appreciate your offer of "compromise" above, but so that other editors can see what is being debated, I have reset your edit for the time being. Once this discussion has reached a conclusion, and hopefully a consensus, then the reference can be reworked. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I take that as you refusing my compromise. You seem to be unwilling to accept a middle ground, even if I tried. How can you claim lack of consensus when (at least I haven't seen) no single editor is echoing your views? Read WP:DUE and think if it is really relevant to mention al-Qaeda so visibly. We all know he mentioned it in this context, but it was a really tiny, single remark in this vast amount of text (1500+ pages) --hydrox (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the reason that User Teiresia and I feel that this reference is important, and should be in the "Politics" section, is because it points to the underlying basis of "fear based motivations" that both Al Qaeda and Breivik are basing their entire political structures on. To ignore this or try to minimize it, seems to us to be to ignore the primary motivating factor that Breivik is planning on basing the entire movement on that he imagines himself as founding by his acts of terrorism (inciting mass fears). Scott P. (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"because it points to the underlying basis of "fear based motivations" that both Al Qaeda and Breivik are basing their entire political structures on." There you go. That's called original research. --hydrox (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on that comment it also seems that you have an ulterior motive, drawing a political link between al-Qaeda and Breivik. --hydrox (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I give up Hydrox. I simply don't have any more time to argue this any further. Do as you will Hydrox. Take care. Scott P. (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

scott has unfortunately broken the 3-rr policy a couple of times now in less than 24 hours (8 reverts i think). i have just reverted and we're back to square one.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the other organization he mentions as "successful"?-- mustihussain (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The other organization listed there was MEND, apparently a militant "Christian" organization based in the African Niger delta area. Scott P. (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Multiple sources required - Agree that more than one secondary source is required to justify special mention of the Al Qaeda passage in the WP article. There are hundreds of significant commentaries on the manifesto available. If only one, CBS, has focused on the Al Qaeda passage, then that is not enough for WP to also focus readers on that passage. If several significant commentators focus on that passage, then it could be included in this article. If Anders Behring Breivik were a minor figure, and only a handful of major news sources discussed him, a single major source like CBS may be sufficient. But he is not minor. Stated another way: if only CBS focuses on Al Qaeda, that means that hundreds of news sources did not focus on it. --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

File:Pears-Soap-barbox.jpg

Among the things that Wikipedia isn't, there is the soapbox. So do like the soap in the picture, and get out of the soap box. Besides, is better when you are neekid™.

Now, brothers (and sisters) in the Christian faith: by contract with our God, we are obligued to speak truth. This guy is a Christian fundamentalist and a Christian terrorist. That is the truth, whether we like it or not. Could you please stop denying and downplaying that he is using the bible in his own way to explain why a sadistic mass murder is a good thing? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This entry should probably be deleted. It is proselytizing, interpetative, speculative, incompliant with the style guide (as I understand) and dubious to the max. Incidentally, a person can be a Christian and a terrorist without being a "Christian terrorist", just as one can be a Darwinist and a terrorist without being a "Darwinist terrorist". Breivik's writings give grounds for doubting all the points you presumptively raise. You also appeal to a personal interpretation of a contract between yourself and your god as binding upon other users, which won't fly. Moreoever, we are all trying to speak the truth; apparently we don't all agree with your interpretations of what the truth is!--Ben Ammi (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not the same stance when it comes to muslim terrorists? --89.204.137.166 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

huh? (As far as I know, the "same stance" is taken in regards to all peoples, by Wikipedia. If you have problems with Wiki articles on Muslims, then go fix those instead.) The initial post by Rursus is anecdotal, containing unproven, disputed claims. Moreover, Rursus' contract(s) with his god is irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Ben Ammi (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also WP:BLP to consider. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As of now, the sources say he was motivated by what he saw as Christian motives. His manifesto is chock full of Christian themes and symbology, and I haven't seen any sources that indicate those sources to be in error. It is not up to us to decide what we believe about him or not. Ours is the realm of verifiability, not truth. Let's all assume Good Faith, and go with the sources. This is a new event, and I'm sure more information will arise. Now is not the time for original research, sanitizing, or political POVs to carry the day.204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on Anders Behring Breivik should mention that he is fucking right-wing whack job who, like all racist nutters, should be hung. Cheers. 86.141.0.233 (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources say that experts describe the acts as right-wing terrorism.[18] BTW we treat terrorist attacks by Muslims in the same way. Arab terrorist attacks in the 1980s by the Abu Nidal organization, the PLO, etc. are never described as Islamic terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot is censoring me?

Why has the bot deleted the word "nationalism"!? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik&diff=next&oldid=441328218 --89.204.137.166 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's a simple case of edit conflict; feel free to redo your edit. . Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder

The introduction states that Breivik is the "admitted perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, in which he murdered more than 90 people." Murder is a particular legal concept. Until Breivik is tried and convicted wouldn't it be better to state "he killed more than 90 people"?

As I understand it Breivik has admitted his actions but not criminal responsibility. I don't know much about his mental state but if he turns out to be insane it seems possible that he could be found not guilty (and put in an asylum), or perhaps convicted of a lesser offence than murder. Don't we need to be very careful about Biographies of living persons? Iota (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point; I concur.--Ben Ammi (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:WTA.--Cerejota (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is he married?

Is he married? Did he have any girlfriend? Is there any information on his mental instability? What was his occupation, really? Too much is said about his ideological beliefs and too litle about him as a person. I think the latter is much more important. There are people with any beliefs you like, extreme, fundamentalist, etc. but very few of them would commit such an outrage! Olegwiki (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He was single according to his manifesto, although he had apprently had previous relations. Is this mentioning-worthy? He had no occupation after he started preparing for the attack in 2009(?). It's all detailed in the log at the end of the manifesto. --hydrox (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He was a loner, without many other activities other than planning the attacks, discussions on the Internet and occasional video gaming, from what I could find out. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How did he earn his living then if he did not work? Is there any information about him (in Norvegian media, maybe) apart from his own manifesto? I mean interviews with his friends, collegues, etc. I think is is worth mentioning that he is single if confirmed by his manifesto. It is no less important than his views. Olegwiki (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about that, myself, but since he came from an affluent area of Norway, it might be possible he had inherited money. It's likely he lived very frugal except for activities related to planning the deed. Speculating. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This Swedish article is quite clarifying: [19] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Arrest

Is it right to say that though he was armed, he did not resist and actually surrended to the police? Olegwiki (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source that makes that statement? The news reports I've caught regarding his apprehension have all stated "taken into custody without incident", which isn't the same as him surrendering. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter seems to make that claim, although it's not vey specific: [20] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You will find news reports stating that he surrendered by searching for "Breivik overga seg"...; the literal translation of which into English would be "Breivik surrendered himself". Politiet: Breivik overga seg uten kamp (Lit. transl.: "Police: Breivik surrendered himself without struggle") The police also has stated that he still was in possession of large amounts of ammunition at the time of the arrest (Breivik tatt med store mengder ammunisjon (lit. transl: "Breivik caught with large amounts of ammunition"). ΑΩ (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a wetsuit

It says, at the end of the biography section, that Breivik is wearing a wetsuit in the picture accompanying the text. That must be based upon a misapprehension on the part of some journalist. He is actually wearing a Skins Sports Compression garment. That company website is blacklisted here on Wikipedia on account of spamming, so you'll have to look it up for yourself at store(dot)skins(dot)net/intl/men/active/sport-mens-compression-crom-long-sleeve-top.html ΑΩ (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wet-suit" is widespread - one source is a young man that was on the boat to the island with him. I must admit I thought "Skins" referred to Skinhead ! But his own kit-list agrees with you. Unfortunately IIRC Wikipedia prefers to repeat popular misconceptions, rather than truth ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He is an orphan of divorce

He grew up without his biological father. I think this important and was part of his psychological problems making him such a monster killer. --89.204.153.234 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable, verifiable source to support this claim? Please keep WP:OR in mind before attempting to add such to the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He last met and talked to his father in 1995, the year of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma. According to the father his son was at that time talking about leaving Norway for the US. (http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080698) His father also was a fairly high level public servant - an economist/diplomat working at the Norwegian embassy in London at the time when Anders Behring Breivik was born. His parents did however separate when he was one year old. According to the statements in that article however, there seems to have been some contact between father and son up until 1995. ΑΩ (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there are many sources describing this[21]. JonFlaune (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal developments

Some material on today's closed doors court proceedings should be added:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080768

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080747

According to the court decision today, Breivik received 8 weeks of jail in solitary confinement:

Breivik er varetektsfengslet i åtte uker - fire uker i full isolasjon.

Also note:

På spørsmål om straffskyld fra dommeren, svarte 32-åringen at han erkjente de faktiske forhold, både for eksplosjonen og for massakeren på Utøya, men har erkjenner ikke straffskyld.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please translate the above for us non-Swedish speakers? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik er varetektsfengslet i åtte uker - fire uker i full isolasjon.

Breivik is sentenced to confinement/custody/jail for eight weeks — four in total isolation.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the initiative of running the second statement through Google Translate, and the proper translation of the second statement would appear to be along these lines (correct what's in error, please!):

When asked by the judge, the 32-year-old said that he acknowledged the facts regarding the explosion and the massacre of Utøya, but did not acknowledge guilt.

--Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik has not been "sentenced" - what happened today is that the court approved a request from the police to keep him in protective custody for eight weeks. 90.149.37.62 (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

På spørsmål om straffskyld fra dommeren, svarte 32-åringen at han erkjente de faktiske forhold, både for eksplosjonen og for massakeren på Utøya, men har erkjenner ikke straffskyld.

Asked by the judge regarding legal responsibility, the 32 year old answered that he confessed to the factual curcumstances, both regarding the explosion and the Utøya massacre, but that he does not confess to being legally responsible.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the material in the lead dealing with today's detention hearing. This is at least an improvement, but I'm still not happy with it — one can still get the impression that the court decided to detain Breivik because he claims to be in contact with other extremists.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Amorning1976, 25 July 2011

Norway does not currently issue consealed carry permits to civilians.

Amorning1976 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but he was presenting himself as a firearms officer - not 'concealed carry'. Thus irrelevant ?--195.137.93.171 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New body count

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)

Media coverage of the attacks

I think there should be a section detailing this. Fox news and assorted right wing media had long segments with their "expert" commentators analyzing which "evil" arab muslim group did it, only to reduce the story to a 20 second blurb when it became apparent that the perpetrator was one of their own - a muslim-hating, right wing, zionist, christian. Various news and analytical sites have documented and reported on this rather dramatic change in coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenicese (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 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)

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)