Talk:2011 Norway attacks

Sizable sections of Breivik's manifesto copied from Unabomber's

Another issue that is coming to light is that apparently significant sections of Breivik's manifesto are copied and pasted from Theodore Kaczynski's manifesto, with just the odd word changed to alter the institutions the rant is directing against.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/anders_breivik_unabomber.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/07/24/oslo-utoya-norway-attacks-anders-breivik-manifesto-unibomber_n_908143.html

young adults and teenagers

"The median age of the deceased was 18 years and the average age 21.8 years." "summer camp, which is organized there every summer[52] and which was attended by approximately 600 teenagers."

The article calls the victim population teenagers multiple times and gives the reader the impression that all the victims were teenagers when this is not the case at all. The article should read "approximately 600 teenagers and young adults" and it needs revised many times where it says teenagers.

Why is this article still locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.109.131 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WTA Terrorist

it said to check the talk page for the opening line statement of terrorist (which is also unsoruced) but i found nothing and since WP:Consensus can change the word, though used in the media, is not WTA accepted as this is not a media service to parrot what the media with all its biases and sensationalism say it is. Sure used in QUOTES and explicitly attributed to the media or whoever specific but that doesnt make it gospel truth or encylopaedic worth.Lihaas (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

you didn't look very hard, did you? here it is [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.23.234 (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. Though this guy seems to fancy himself a terrorist, I don't think that word belongs in the opening sentence. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What word would you suggest if not the one used by almost every source discussing the topic? By that logic any article involving the word terrorist, or terrorism, should be avoided. It surely would help bring down the number of articles.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not governed by the pesky need for NPOV, we are. I have revert all use of the term terrorist as per WP:LABEL, and of course WP:CCC. Please read WP:BRD.--Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone reverted me with a consensus argument. And was reverted again. Again, WP:CCC and WP:BRD. Most importantly, the guideline WP:LABEL suggests we shouldn't use the term "terrorist" at all. Of course, consensus can overcome a guideline, but it seems to me this will be an eternal WP:LABEL issue. However, there is no reason to allege "consensus", there really isn't a consensus when the revert of my revert is reverted by another user who might be yet reverted. The reality is, there is no consensus, there is, however a guideline that speaks strongly in favor of not using the term, and I see no reason here why we should suspend the guideline. Of course, I do suggest that instead of plain "undo" people revisit the argument as per WP:BRD. THere is chance, however slight, that someone can come up with a compelling argument as to why we should ignore this guideline in this case. --Cerejota (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota, and BRD seems to require more discussion. I believe the way the content was presented we could be seen as teaching rather than letting the reader decide. It is one thing to attribute a source as saying a thing, while it is entirely another to simply state it as fact. That is why I reverted the edit on a one time basis. My76Strat (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason you can not see it on this specific talk page and not see a consensus is because every previous discussion about this subject has been archived. The two biggest of those can be found on archive page 2 [2] and 3 [3]. Not everybody knows the interwiki-abbreviations, but I'm assuming you mean WP:WTA, which was discussed on talk page 3. And the direct quote from WP:WTA is "Value-laden labels [...] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject [...]" (my emphasis). There have been plenty of references supporting the use of the word, but in order to satisfy those that did not agree with the one reference various people have added, several additional references has been added throughout revision history, but then the reference list got so long that it made the lead very awkward to read, and thus others again had them removed, and then the word itself got removed again by someone else, and the discussion started anew. Here are just a few of the references previously used: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] etc. The perpetrator (ABB) can be a terrorist even though he is a wacko Christian and not a Muslim. His acts is exactly how terrorism is defined in the Norwegian criminal law, and a couple of lawyers interviewed on Norwegian television has even stated that this is not a case of guilty or not, but how long and what kind of sentence he will get, since ABB has already admitted doing the acts. Laniala (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me we should use the definition of terrorism from Norwegian criminal law. According to US law, terrorism is politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, defining this act as not being terrorism. Grstein (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Breivik "unmoved" by return to island

On Breivik's return to Utoya with police to reconstruct the events the text reads: "Many police officers who took part in the operation confirmed that Breivik showed absolutely no remorse and was completely unmoved by his return to Utøya." This is incorrect according to CNN, which reported he was "'was not emotionally unmoved,' but did not express remorse during his return to Utoya". I think someone got the double negative wrong. Not emotionally unmoved = he was emotionally moved. SOURCE: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/08/14/norway.attacks/index.html?iref=allsearch

118.92.26.94 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed it.--Patrick (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody check a Norwegian source? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the Norwegian sources is http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10081294 with a video of the press briefing (in Norwegian) here: http://www.vgtv.no/#!id=42917 (the actual question here is at 02:01). Interview with his defence attorney about the same is here http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/indeks/273814/ (in Norwegian). Anyway, it says he was not unmoved (not unmoved=moved) by being back at the island, but at the same time he did and does not regret doing his actions as he still believe they were necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

it seem to be commonly refereed to as 22/7 in norway

similar to how the september 11 attacks was referred to as 9/11 but in norway the day is listed first and the month second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik with gun (self portrait).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anders Behring Breivik with gun (self portrait).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)