Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reporting the manifesto as fact

Why is this article reporting the stories from the manifesto as fact? For example, the trip to Prague to buy weapons, which could be fiction for all we know... The only source is a Czech article which quotes the manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.22.103.129 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the section "Reliance on Manifesto" above. In short, the manifesto is not so much being cited as fact as certain sources have cited it is as fact and the content of those sources has been replicated here. Unfortunately, those who doubt the veracity of the manifesto on various issues (and I do I count myself amongst them)cannot change this content without a contradicting source for support. As to that particular Prague issue, the source isn't exactly great, but I'd say it barely passes muster. Remember, it's not out job here to decide the facts, but to report on the facts as they have been represented in valid sources. I submit to you that if these elements rub you the wrong way, there must be sources out there digging into the manifesto's claims. Go find them and I doubt there will be many people here who will oppose their being used to remove certain suspicious claims (depending on the all-important quality of the sources, of course!) Snow (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem with the source? Apart the fact it relies on manifesto, is it the fact, that it is not an English-language source? Unfortunately it is the reality that newspapermen tend to be centered more around what is close to them. So for the Czech part, the Czech sources are the best, for the investigation relating to his Polish chemistry delivery-man, the Polish sources are the best. Right now the Czech security service was asked by the Norwegian to look into his Czech trip, so there may be some reality-check to his manifesto claims soon (although I personally doubt they will be able to find anything, there are dozens of thousands of tourists every year doing what Breivik did, i.e. clubs & drugs & hookers,in Prague. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Breiwik uses the Benes Decrees by way of which 3 million Sudeten Germans were expelled from the Czech Republic as a weapon to get rid of Muslims from Europe. He cites Wikipedia. Whoever has had a look into the German or English Wikipedia to get information about the expulsion of Germans gets horrified about the aggression and historical distortion against the victims there.--92.228.176.129 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What historical distortion do you have in mind?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinion unrelated to the improvement of the article

Beneš decrees and Wikipedia This is a very interesting topic, because we know that Breivik's thinking was influenced by Wikipedia. Eventually we're going to ask whether racial biases reflected here had any influence on him - and this would seem to be a good case, perhaps the best case, to examine that. From Brevik's manifesto - repeated word for word on page 523 and 725: "It is possible that those Western countries where the infidels are strong enough will copy the Benes Decrees from Czechoslovakia in 1946, when most of the so-called Sudeten Germans, some 3.5 million people, had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth column without any loyalty to the state. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land. As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has demonstrated, there is a much better case for a Benes Decree for parts of the Muslim population in the West now than there ever was for the Sudeten Germans." From Wikipedia (He references [1] on page 759; the first paragraph is only in the Feb 26 versions): Some of the decrees concerned the expropriation of the property of wartime traitors and collaborators accused of treason, but were applied to Germans and Hungarians collectively. (In 1948 such provisions were cancelled for the Hungarians.) This was then used to confiscate their property and expel around 90% of the ethnic German population of Czechoslovakia. The Germans were collectively accused of having supported the Nazis (through the Sudeten German Party– a political party led by Konrad Henlein)– and the Third Reich's annexation of the German-populated Czech borderland in 1938. Almost every decree explicitly stated that the sanctions did not apply to anti-fascists, though the term anti-fascist was not explicitly defined. Some 250,000 Germans, some anti-fascists and others judged people crucial for industries, remained in Czechoslovakia. Many of the anti-fascists of German native language emigrated under a special agreement stipulated by Alois Ullmann."ref" The "ref" is: Finally Social Democrats of German native language, 9,165 of them had suffered in Nazi concentration camps and jails, 13,536 experienced other persecutions by Nazis, and their relatives were spared the harshest atrocities, by interning them in separate special camps. 73,125 were deported under preferential circumstances, of course expropriated, a mere 45,779 of them was allowed to take at least their chattel. Perhaps the more interesting fact from Breivik's point of view is the longer description in the article that the Benes decrees were never reversed, and remain a sticking point for efforts to guarantee human rights in Europe to this day. Now looking at this, I don't think Wikipedia was particularly biased here; if anything it seems to my reading to favor the other side a little. My feeling is that Wikipedia is no more pro-Breivik than the maker of Glock handguns; he simply chose Wikipedia as a quality tool for his purposes. It is clear how he would view this as a model - he's viewing Muslims in Norway, like Germans in Czechoslovakia, as a "fifth column"; in fact, his proposal even allows for a sort of "good Muslim" he would accept keeping under onerous terms, sort of like the "anti-fascist Germans". Wnt (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

non-neutral pov quote from independent

'Outcry over role of English Defence League', currently footnote number 98, misrepresents Breivik's attitude towards the EDL by selectively quoting from his manifesto, Breivik called the EDL 'naive fools' and disagreed with their non-violent methods. here's a quote from the manifesto:

'KT was formed back in 2002 as a revolutionary conservative movement because we had lost hope that the democratic framework can solve Europe’s current problems. The EDL, on the other hand, IS a democratic movement. They STILL believe that the democratic system can solve Britain’s problems… This is why the EDL harshly condemns any and all revolutionary conservative movements that employ terror as a tool, such as the KT. And this is why, we, the KT view the EDL as naïve fools, wasting all their energy monkey- screaming to deaf ears while they should instead have focused on means and methods that are meaningful in regards to achieving true political change, in regards to tearing down the multiculturalist regime known as Britain. Unfortunately, the only meaningful resistance at this point in time is to use military force.'

the independent conveniently leaves out that Breivik disagreed with what he saw as the EDL's non-violent, democratic methods. AdamDavid (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

anyone else wants to remove this non-neutral source? AdamDavid (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That the guy eschews non-violence seems to be pretty obvious and leaving this out doesn't seem to be POV at all to me. Given the emotive subject you'd have to be a hardcore Vulcan to be NPOV about it. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think his argument -- and I could be wrong here, because the comment is a bit vague to me -- is that a link has been suggested between the EDL and Breivik, either direct communication or a sympathy for the EDL on Brevik's part, wheras David is saying that this link seems unlikely given Breivik holds them in such low esteem. However, it's important to note that, whether the link exists or not, the current furor towards the EDL is a very real thing. I've heard it commented upon by Norwegians, Brits, and Americans in the last 24 hours, which means it must be well represented in the media of all three countries. In fact, one of those persons was a journalist I was having a conversation with. So the source is still valid, if only to reflect that fact, even if the link does prove to be false. However any content in the article itself derived from that source may be subject to change. But I really think we need to wait for more information before doing anything. Snow (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Subject to change... and changed --- be bold! claiming that this guy supports the EDL or that the EDL leadership supports his actions just can't be proven so i edited the section political beliefs. agreed the 'independent' source should stay if only to show how the attempt is being made to link this atrocity with non-violent european anti-islam movements. AdamDavid (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's extremely premature. Breivik's manifesto is a primary source and as such it cannot be used to contradict a secondary source, and there are a lot of secondary sources reporting on a possible link to the EDL right now. Until there are sources of equal established validity disproving those claims, the content should stay in. And honestly, even putting Wikipedia policy aside for a moment, there's no reason to trust the manifesto about any detail that has not yet been confirmed; I certainly don't trust a man who would mass murder children and claim it was justified for the greater good not to obfuscate for the same reason. And quite frankly, having read quite a bit of that bizarre document, it's clear to me that there are many statements in there that are almost certainly lies, half-truths, and outright delusions, and no doubt a great deal of intentional misdirection. These are the types of reasons primary sources are not consider valuable references in the first place. But, whatever, the story will develop quickly I'm sure. We'll soon know at least a little about whether there's cause to replace it or if it should stay gone. I wouldn't be surprised either way, honestly. Snow (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a couple of sources that seems to suggest that there was atleast some contact between members of the EDL and ABB: [1][2]. Im not very familiar with the british press though, so im uncertain about their reliability. TRambler (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is a very solid source, a newspaper that's about as old as they come with a decent reputation for veracity. Also, they are noted for being strongly right-leaning, editorial-wise, so if they are leading the charge on this story, there's a good chance the evidence is compelling. The daily Mail, by comparison, is more tabloid in nature, but it is one of the largest newspapers in the country in terms of circulation and I think passes muster as an acceptable source. Snow (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I just have a problem with secondary sources using the manifesto as a source to claim that breivik supported the edl when on the same page breivik calls the edl 'naive fools' and condemns their commitment to the democratic process. i added a secondary source that cites breivik and provides a more neutral point of view.[2] AdamDavid (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the EDL's blog is not an appropriate source, anymore than the manifesto itself is. It' a primary source in this instance for one, and hardly qualifies for NPOV. Snow (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why we allow a secondary source that cherry-picks sentences from 2083 when the result is not a neutral or even accurate portrayal of the killer's views, and why no one has found and added a secondary source that bothers to be fair and balanced AdamDavid (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

the irish times quotes the edl's quote of the manifesto, its a little footnote at the end that i dont think would conform to WP:SAY AdamDavid (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

on second thought, i'd say the article [3] is about 3/4 balanced AdamDavid (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel those sources are cherry-picking, but seeing as we are not working the in the context of their editorial or fact-checking departments, but rather in the context of Wikipedia, that means absolutely nothing. Wikipedia is not investigatory in nature and it is not our place to pass judgement on the working process of our sources. We form content by assimilating the information we find in valid and appropriate sources, not by generating it ourselves based on what we with is more likely to be true based on personal logic and perspective. It doesn't matter if you think a source is "3/4", or "20%", or "barely even a teeny-weeny bit" "fair and balanced"; what matters is solely if it is a valid and appropriate source and whether it actually supports the information for which it is cited. However, that being said, having read the Irish Times' article, it seems like it's good enough grounds to introduce something along the lines of "The EDL, however, has denied any association with Breivik and disavowed any support for violent extremism, further noting that Breivik's own manifesto is critical of the group as 'anti-fascist, anti-violent and anti-extremist'". It's a quote of a quote of a quote, which, obviously is pretty far from ideal, and the EDL seem to be taking some liberties in how they quote Brevik as well, but I'd just barely be comfortable with it as consistent with policy guidelines. Don't be surprised if you get resistance from others with stricter perspectives on the guidelines though, so be careful what you claim the article claims, because the quote is small and does cite any of Breivik's actual words from the manifesto.

But even accepting that source, let me say that you seem very devoted to trying provide proof to support the EDL's position, so please try to remember that WP:NPOV does not mean that you try to keep sources honest and "balanced", it means you must be neutral in how you approach the sources. Those are two entirely different things. And I think you need to be prepared to deal with further claims on this issue -- after-all even the Irish Times article you are citing here is primarily concerned with the fact that Searchlight has claimed to have turned up a lot more evidence, of a much more convincing nature, to demonstrate a clear link between Breivik and the EDL and they are not the only group investigating the issue who has made this claim in the last couple of days. Why you are so certain that the EDL could not in any way be linked to the man, I don't know. Personally, having read some of the responses to the attack on the groups discussion pages, it's clear that at least some EDL supporters who sympathize with Breivik and support his actions. Maybe that doesn't characterize the vast majority of people associated with the group, but it only takes a handful to establish what could honestly be called a "link", which is a pretty innocuous and mild term, afterall. As for Breivik's dismissing the group as counterproductive to his goals, let's remember that this is a man who coldly and methodically gunned down scores of children out of devotion to his '"cause"; do you really think it's beyond this man to lie to you and anyone reading his manifesto in order to protect other people he might have been working or who he saw as potential supporters of his views? That seems like a rather selective way of analyzing the man's character, especially when his stated goal is to try to get borderline-extremist members of far-right (but largely non-violent) groups to arm themselves and carry out further attacks. Anyway, I'm obviously not going to add any of that perspective into the content any more than I'd sit still for someone using original research to claim that here was no link whatsoever, I'm just trying to warn you that you need to be prepared for the fact that an avalanche of sources further claiming a link could be on it's way in, and you'll have to make peace with what they claim if people decide to add that content. That's just the nature of the beast with Wikipedia. Snow (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

according to WP:Primary, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." i think that's what i did by quoting the manifesto directly in the political beliefs section, but i used the irish times source too. AdamDavid (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is a much better argument than those you've made above. Just be careful, it's one thing to replicate a statement that shows criticism for the EDL, it's another to claim that this even suggests he wouldn't work with the EDL, since even this crosses well over into the principal (found right after the sentences you quoted) of "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." There are a thousand reasons why Brevik might have made that statement and yet still associated with people in the EDL; he might have lied outright, or he might have changed his mind, he might have jumped at the chance to associate with people who shared even a fraction of his personal philosophy, he might have been trying to find more radical elements amongst the group, he might have been looking for material support and was willing to work with a group he didn't really respect. Those kinds of vagueries collectively represent just one of the many reasons we try to avoid primary sources as entirely as possible and that, when we do allow them, it is only with the tightest of restrictions upon the wording of content that they are used as a source for.Snow (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

so you think that the quote "the EDL harshly condemns any and all revolutionary conservative movements that employ terror as a tool" from the primary source that's referenced in the irish times should go back in? AdamDavid (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Medals and commendations...

There's this picture out with all kinds of military bars and ribbons and medals, which I suppose might speak volumes to someone who knows something about the military.[4] Question: do they, or is it just some pattern he picked out because it was pretty? I see he has a Templar Cross on a black ribbon, which I suppose he must have awarded himself for the heroic assault on the unarmed teenagers... I wonder if the purple ribbon is like a Purple Heart, which alas he awarded in error. Wnt (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am the owner of a US Army Combat Paratrooper medal... not a bad achievement for a guitar player from Sydney. (In case you missed the sarcasm, unless there is a military citation to go with it, medals don't mean squat). Manning (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

they are an amalgam he created. http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1592811.ece I would say it is meaningless except as an example of his self aggrandizement megalomania and his focus on the crusades.23:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.44.109 (talk)

Well, one of the ribbons apparently means "prisoner of war". Yet, in his "manifesto", he talks about how he intends to die while killing as many enemies as possible.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently that plan went out the window the very second he saw another armed man as opposed to children fleeing for their lives. Worm... Snow (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can get only a fraction of the image for the big jpg in the linked source here. How do you get that a ribbon means P.O.W.? Which one? Wnt (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

@Wnt: Maybe you can download the jpg and view it outside of the browser. The description of the ribbon reads "Krigsfange", probably meaning former POW. @Snow: I'm actually glad that local police did not intervene, as in all likelihood, Breivik would have simply shot them, resulting in even more deaths.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The uniform is a USMC dress uniform with freemason buttons, and the ribbons are actual US decorations.

Based on http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1592811.ece, here's a rough translation of the ribbons he awarded himself, from top to bottom and left to right, with their actual significance (as near as I can make them out, cf. Awards and decorations of the United States military and Authorized foreign decorations of the United States military) in parentheses:

• At the top: “Master Saboteur” (Presidential Unit Citation)
• First row: “Honorable Crusader” (Air Force Organizational Excellence Award), “Martel & Sobieski” (Legion of Merit), “Distinguished Volunteer” (Bronze Star Medal)
• Second row: “Infantry Cross” (Navy Cross), “Warlord” (Air Force Combat Action Medal), “Multinational Force” (unidentified)
• Third row: “Secret Logistician” (Coast Guard Arctic Service Medal?), “Financier” (Silver Lifesaving Medal?), “Instructor Training” (unidentified, vaguely similar to the Air Force Training Ribbon)
• Fourth row: “Intellectual Strength” (unidentified), “Prisoner of War” (Prisoner of War Medal), “Wounded in Action” (Purple Heart)
• Fifth row: “Destroyer of Cultural Marxism” (Army Meritorious Unit Commendation), “Protector of Christianity” (allegedly a ribbon awarded by South Vietnam to US personnel, possibly Vietnam Presidential Unit Citation), “Defender of the Nation” (Army Valorous Unit Award)

As you can see, some of them correspond to actual US military awards (Prisoner of War Medal, Purple Heart) but most are pure fantasy. I can't imagine the anger US servicemen and -women must feel at seeing a USMC uniform and award ribbons defiled in this manner.

The medals are, from left to right: “Knight of Malta”, “Knight Templar”, “Constantine's Red Cross”. Apparently, the “Knight Templar” cross is issued to martyrs, while the other two are issued for 10 and 15 successful actions, respectively.

The shoulderboards (and, I presume, the collar insigna) mark him as a “Justiciar Knight Commander”. The source claims this is a World of Warcraft rank.

The emblem on his left shoulder is of his own design; the hilt of the dagger is in the shape of a templar cross, and the skull's forehead is branded with three symbols representing communism, islam and nazism.

DES (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite an impressive list of make-believe honours and credentials. I can't help but wonder...if this guy had only discovered Dungeons and Dragons before violent extremism, the sad state of his mind might have stayed between him and his Dungeon Master.... Anyway, I question whether any of this is worth mentioning in the article. Yes, it can be sourced (which is perhaps more than I can say for a significant portion of content changes that people have been proposing/making on the page), but does it contribute significantly to our understanding of the subject? At a certain point we have got to stop obsessing over the self-glorifying content that Breivik has promoted himself with, simply because he had the foreknowledge of the attacks and got his info out there first. If anything, this particular detail seems more relevant to his page than it does to this one. Snow (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it belongs in the article. DES (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The relevance here is that now we know what to look for, if he turns up for trial in this uniform etc. and we want to find revealing sources. Thanks, DES, for cracking the code. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, the court will never allow him to stand trial in anything else than plain civilian clothing. DES (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism in the lede?

Per WP:TERRORIST, and pending a judicial resolution to this case, do we really want to use the word "terrorism" in the lede? It seems a little tabloidy for me. --John (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word lede rather than lead also looks a bit tabloidy to me! - Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See Lead_paragraph - Lede is a common and acceptable alternate spelling. Manning (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is the exact word used by mainstream (not only tabloid) media to describe the attacks. We are following the same convention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it should be easy to produce multiple reliable sources for this. I will go ahead and place a cn tag. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A few days ago I readded the word "terrorist", along with an inline citation for it. It appears that the citation was removed, then the word "terrorist" was removed since it was no longer cited. Sigh. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For those incapable of calling this a terrorist act because no muslim is involved: see [5][6][7][8][9][10]--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 17:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Your comment about Muslims is just plain weird. Your sources do carry some weight, especially the CNN one. Opinion pieces are not really what we need here. On the other hand here is the BBC stating that the suspect denies the charges of terrorism. The more I think about it, the more I feel that WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST dictate that we not use this word pending a judicial resolution. --John (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • • The fact you find my comment weird speaks volumes. An elaborate clarification can be found here [11].--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I coded your references, but I don't think that I did it exactly right. I prefaced the citations with an HTML comment so that someone editing the page will maybe take a look. When the page is rendering, it seems to be adding extra characters in the reference section such as '[' and '|' for some reason. Other similar references don't seem to do that. I was using the "first1", "last1", "first2", "last2" format along with the corresponding "authorlink1" and "authorlink2" ... not sure what is going on. 174.21.161.136 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with John's revision. I think that we should go with the language that is being reported, which says "Terrorist." Several credible articles refer to it as such and I think that omitting the word "Terrorist," when it is in article titles, etc., and is censorship. That is what the mainstream news has been calling it for the better part of a week... at least until they figured out that the man wasn't a Muslim. While opinion is just that, the fact is that in the mainstream news, this event was widely referred to as a "Terrorist attack" especially when everyone thought it was someone of the Muslim religion behind it. One of those references details how the word "Terrorist" was automagically transformed into "Madman" when it was discovered that he was a white Christian and not a brown Muslim. Just for saving someone else the time to recode any of those references... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Norway_attacks&oldid=441938109 174.21.161.136 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 174.21. The number of sources (removed in this edit) clearly shows that the statements from WP:TERRORIST: "...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" applies here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both above me. A whole bunch of references from well acknowledged newspapers got removed in that edit, all citing it as a terrorist attack. Archive page 3 also has this very same discussion if it was a terrorist attack or not. ABB is currently charged with §147 a in the Norwegian crime law (unless they change the charge to "crimes against humanity" or "genocide" which gives room for a up to 30 years in prison). §147 can be found in Norwegian version here - http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19020522-010.html#map018 - and states (with perhaps some awkward English translation)

§ 147a. An offense as mentioned in §§ 148, 151 a, 151 b first paragraph ref. third paragraph, 152 second paragraph, 152 a second paragraph, 152 b, 153 first to third paragraph, 153 a, 154, 223 second paragraph, 224 , 225 first or second paragraph, 231 ref. 232, or 233 is considered a terrorist act and is punishable by imprisonment up to 21 years when committed with the intent

a) to interfere seriously with a function of fundamental importance in society, such as legislative, executive or judicial authority, energy supply, safe supply of food or water, banking and monetary system or health emergency preparedness and infection control,

b) creating serious fear in a population, or

c) unfairly forcing public authorities or an intergovernmental organization to do, tolerate or refrain from anything of significance for the country or organization, or another country or intergovernmental organization.

[...]

§ 148. Whoever causes conflagration, collapsed buildings, explosions, flooding, sea damage, railway accident or aviation accident whereby loss of life or extensive destruction of foreign property can be easily caused, or who is accessory thereto, shall be punished with imprisonment from 2 years up to 21 years, but not under 5 years if anyone because of the crime is killed or seriously injured to body or in health. Attempts are punishable equally to consummated crime.

[...]

§ 231. He who causes or contributes to inflict significant damage upon another person's body or health shall be punished for assault with prison for minimum 3 years. Has he acted deliberately then prison up to 21 years can be used, providing the crime has caused death.

§ 233. He who causes another's death or has contributed to it, shall be punished for murder with prison for at least 8 years.

ABB has admitted to doing the physical acts. He has not admitted to the charge because he does not believe he did anything that should be punished (http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7724994), and the trial will probably not start for a another year. I don't know how it is defined in English, but for the Norwegian definition I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that at least the explosion and damage (§ 148) is not a terrorist attack in the law text. The mass shootings might be covered in section §231 and §233 combined with §147 b) So if for some weird reason terrorism is defined differently in English than in Norwegian, is it the Norwegian definition (since it happened in Norway) or the English definition that should be deciding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither. Only the terminology employed by valid and appropriate sources can determine the content and format of the article. Though I thank you very kindly for providing that legal information as it valuable to us all the same and may even silence a few of the persistent voices here who keep trying to dictate the tone of the article based on personal opinion of what the legal situation is. I welcome anything that will cause them hold back on flooding this page further with personal arguments (not that I haven't been guilty of the same thing a time or two on this page) but I remind everyone that this is not a forum for discussing our personal perceptions of the event, nor even for providing cogent, logical, and well-thought-out arguments for why it is or is not terrorism. The article will reflect it as a terrorist attack because our sources overwhelmingly do the same. Snow (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy with this view, but I am deeply uneasy about calling it terrorism while the judicial process of a living person is ongoing. --John (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The living person can hang as far as I'm concerned... There may be a technical legal process to be gone through regarding guilt of one particular suspect, but there's no doubt that the 2011 Norway attacks were an act of terrorism. I know that's a vague and easily diluted term, but this is pretty close to a type specimen of it. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. More importantly (to our purposes here), the sources almost all designate the act as such. Clearly the majority here are agreed that this is the language employed by our sources and that it is terminology appropriate to the description of the event. This is as close as we're ever going to come to consensus on this issue. The language referring to the act as terrorist in nature stays and the people who keep unilateraly reverting it need to remember that Wikipedia content is not determined by their personal opinions or logic nor even by the consensus opinion and logic. It is formed by citing appropriate sources. And as matter of fact, what the sources say on the matter is so uniform and so unambiguously worded, I further put forth that the title of the article ought to be reverted to '2011 Norway Terrorist Attacks.' Can I get a vote? Oh, and removing valid sources from the page simply because they happen to disagree with your stance is completely inappropriate. If that persists, someone needs to get blocked, plain and simple. Snow (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think I'd go so far as changing the title. "Brevity is the soul of wit and all that..." - no sense shoving in an unnecessary word just to make an argument, even if you're right. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, many of the removals of "terrorist" (and "extremist") have cited the guideline "Words to Avoid", or WP:WTA. I request that those people read the current title of the policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. And for those too lazy to click the link, this is from the relevant section of WP:WTA ('contentious labels'):

"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." (emphasis mine).

And from the header of the page:

"The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies — Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability" (again, emphasis mine).

Those guidelines exist mostly to help keep bias from creeping into articles, but it is not bias to accurately portray the content of appropriate sources, especially when those sources are so numerous and so uniform in how they define the subject. The use of the terms in question is completely consistent with WP:WTA and also, I do not think it is at all an exaggeration to say, required by WP:NPOV. On Wikipedia, avoiding labels that are sometimes viewed as contentious is, like most other factors, a subordinate consideration to the paramount and core principal of accurate representation of source materials. Snow (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see there is still no change, so a few more links in addition to those already provided:

• US Senate resolution S.RES.240.ATS: "condemns in the strongest terms the senseless terrorist attacks that occurred in Norway on July 22, 2011, causing many deaths and injuries" (passed unanimously) — http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112sres240
• "Norway honors victims of terrorist attacks" — http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/29/norway.attacks/index.html
• "[...] How Norway's terror attacks unfolded" — http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14260297
• "[...] At least 87' killed in terror attacks" — http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8656143/Norway-At-least-87-killed-in-terror-attacks.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have just replaced terrorist with extremist because the cited reuters source used that word. If a source is found that explicitly applies the word terrorist to the man, please use it and reword and recite. Otherwise the phrases "terrorist attack" and "terrorism" appear supported by the cites used. It is possible the reuters changed its title: the wikipedia article has ""Man held after Norway attacks right-wing terrorist: report" but reuters now has "Man held after Norway attacks right-wing extremist: report". Google turns up many matches for the latter but only the wikipedia article has the former. However, I also found sources describing the man as terrorist (example: [12]). I suggest those be used if desired, as it might otherwise appear we are misattributing reuters. -84user (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian terrorist http://news.yahoo.com/christian-terrorist-norway-case-strikes-debate-181559379.html 66.188.228.180 (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hate crime?

Would it be appropriate to categorise this into Category:Hate crimes? While I don't think it's being prosecuted as one, he does seem to have chosen his targets based on his hatred for their left-wing politics. Robofish (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Norwegian law employs this distinction. Regardless, mention (or inclusion in the category even) would require a valid course. Snow (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hate crimes are "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion." Political viewpoints aren't covered. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 23:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

'Hate crime' usually infers a smaller event (a single victim). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Only photos styled by Breivik freely available?

Are all mugshots and other pictures of Breivik that aren't styled by himself copyrighted?, no free ones? Electron9 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Targets

Shouldn't the summary name the Norwegian executive as target in addition to the Labour Party? The first bombing targeted the buildings of several ministries along with the PM's office. Currently, a center-left coalition of three different parties constitutes the cabinet of Norway, not Labour alone. Charlie 11:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

To prevent WP:DRIVEBY, POV tagging is usually accompanied by an explanation on the talk page of what the problem is and how to fix it. Without this, the tagging is likely to be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the rhetoric - the language usage. That's obvious. To anyone capable of reading. Speaking of pretty tags...

Please provide some concrete examples as to what language you find objectionable. Regards SoWhy 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-experts of history (non-notable source) with a notable claim

I have moved text to discussion, "The attack on Utøya is the deadliest attack by a single gunman in recorded history". The reference is written by "radar staff" at website radaronline.com. "Radar staff" are not known for having hired any experts on history. (And if they have any, the unnamed authorship can not be attributed to him/her.) The removed reference is here, [13].--BustingInflatedEgos (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC is more cautious, and says that it is "believed to be the deadliest attack by a lone gunman anywhere in modern times."[14]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem: we do not know what MSNBC means by modern times. For me, modern times started with the invention of the VCR. For now, I think that the article does not need any ranking of the shooting spree, unless it is done by a significant historian (not counting Gerald Michael Riviera) who has a good grasp on Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe dating back perhaps four thousand years.--BustingInflatedEgos (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Guns didn't exist 4000 years ago hence there were no "gunmen". The phrase gunman could therefore only apply from the time the arquebus, the first "gun" (if you exclude cannons) was introduced in the 15th century. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 20:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit pedantic. Although it is not the aim of Wikipedia to encourage spree killers to get themselves into Guinness World Records, it is generally agreed that the Utøya shooting is the worst of its kind anywhere in the world. In the List_of_shooting_sprees#List_of_spree_killings, only Woo Bum-kon comes close with 57 killed in 1982. The sourcing should be better than radaronline.com, but a statement putting the shooting into perspective should not be ruled out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Generally agreed"? No. It is my claim that many cultures do not bother making a big deal decades and centuries after the fact, out of unfortunate incidents like these. Perhaps not every culture sells their newspapers and books through this kind of titilation. Can I reference my claim? We will get back to that if and when I enter my claim into an article. A further unreferenced claim of mine, is that history books between 1200 and 1900 mostly mention spree killings if notables were involved as victims or perpetrators.--BustingInflatedEgos (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If the Utøya incident is regarded as a shooting spree, it is almost certainly the worst of its kind. There is little need to go back to the year 1200, because guns were not commonplace then, and a musket reloaded so slowly that it made a spree infeasible. Shooting sprees by a lone gunman require a modern weapon that can be reloaded rapidly, which is why nearly all of these incidents have occurred since World War 2. Please find a cite for a lone gunman shooting spree in the year 1200 before coming up with any more pedantic complaints about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well this is speculation of course but a gunman from the time of the arquebus/musket could have had multiple pre-loaded guns ready to perform a massacre although the weight of carrying several guns would have made more than a handful of victims impractical. I have never heard of such an incident though and I strongly doubt one ever occurred in the age of the early fire arms. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For now I am satisfied with poppycock being temporarily removed from the article. I'll try to get back to this when new "record-breaking" poppycock is added to the article.

And again, "history books between 1200 and 1900 mostly mention spree killings ...". The point is that spree killings (not necessarily spree gunmen) have not been re-recorded (if recorded at all), if notables were not involved. I can not recall having claimed that there were victims of "spree gunmen" in the 1200's.--BustingInflatedEgos (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes

Is there any room for reporting on the german tourist and the married couple who saved 30 and 40, respectively, teens via boat rescue? Aaronwayneodonahue (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's already in there, see the last paragraph of section 3.1 and the middle of section 3.2. DES (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Something one should keep in mind is that due to the WWII occupation there are some strong resentment to take into account relating to this event. Electron9 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks. There is no resentment towards Germany in present-day Norway. If there's anyone we still resent over the part they played in WWII, it's the Swedes, not the Germans. DES (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The couple is not mentioned. 66.188.228.180 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Y they are now. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A sub-discussion has been started below so that DES and Electron9 can rant on about "the Swedes" and "the Germans", respectively.--Ønography (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"the Swedes" and "the Germans"

Is there a general or significant attitude in the Norwegian population, against these nationalities? I do not have any notable and independent references of such. If anyone else has, please post it here, and we will forward it to a more relevant discussion.--Ønography (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic text moved

"The girl in question is Stine Renate Håheim, who was interviewed by CNN's Richard Quest on 23 July 2011, quoting her friend Helle Gannestad."

Text and reference have been removed. There was no question, so therefore there is no "girl in question".--Ønography (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding about the phrasing. The "girl in question" means "the girl being referred to", so the sourcing appears to be OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming title

"2011 Norway attacks" is not an adequate title. There have already been other notable attacks in Norway this year. (And I would like to hear arguments about how a one-man expeditionary force has launched an attack on Norway. Rather, this article concerns the "seven-twentytwo bombing in Oslo and shootings in Buskerud", or Bombing in Oslo and murders in Buskerud 2011-7-22. Any other title-suggestions?--BustingInflatedEgos (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The most obvious title would be "2011 Oslo bombing and Utøya shooting". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.55.236 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback loop & Breivek plays everyone

The manifesto is not his own, press outlets have been in a feedback loop, look at CNN.

Proposed correction for Political Views in this article:-

Breivik is linked to a compendium entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence bearing the name "Andrew Berwick", the file was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses about 90 minutes before the bomb blast in Oslo. CNN has not been able to independently verify that the document was written by Breivik. Police told the Norwegian newspaper VG that the document is "linked". The compendium describes two years of preparation of unspecified attacks, supposedly planned for autumn 2011, involving a rented Volkswagen Crafter van (just small enough not to require a truck driving license) loaded with 1160 kg of ANFO, a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle ("the most 'army like' rifle allowed in Norway, although it is considered a 'poor man’s' AR-15"), a Glock 34 pistol, personal armor including a shield, caltrops, and police insignias. It also reports that Breivik spent thousands of hours on gathering email addresses from Facebook for distribution of the compendium, and that he rented a farm as a cover for a fake farming company buying fertilizer and as a lab for production of the explosives. It describes burying a crate with the armor etc. in July 2010 in the woods, and collecting it on July 4, 2011, and abandoning his plan to replace it with survival gear because he did not have a second pistol. The entry for the day of the attacks mentions blasting sequences, though at Kautokeino for mining, and dressing up as a police officer, though as something he planned to do at a costume party in the autumn.

The introductory chapter of the manifesto defining "Cultural Marxism" is a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation. Major parts of the compendium are attributed to the pseudonymous Norwegian blogger Fjordman. The text also copies sections of the Unabomber manifesto, without giving credit, while exchanging the words "leftists" for "cultural Marxists" and "black people" for "muslims". The New York Times described American influences in the writings, noting that the compendium mentions the anti-Islamist American Robert Spencer 64 times and cites Spencer's works at great length. The work of Bat Ye'or is cited dozens of times. Neoconservative blogger Pamela Geller, Neo-pagan writer Koenraad Elst and Daniel Pipes are also mentioned as sources of inspiration. The manifesto further contains quotes from Middle-eastern expert Bernard Lewis, Edmund Burke, Mahatma Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell, as well as from Jeremy Clarkson's Sunday Times column and Melanie Phillips' Daily Mail column. The publication speaks in admiration of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bruce Bawer, Srđa Trifković, and Henryk M. Broder. The compendium advocates a restoration of patriarchy which it claims would save European culture.

Breivik wants to see European policies on multiculturalism and immigration more similar to those of Japan and South Korea, which he said are "not far from cultural conservatism and nationalism at its best". He expressed his admiration for the "monoculturalism" of Japan and for the two nations' refusal to accept refugees.

Norwegian computer security analysts are in the process of researching what appear to be hidden codes in Breivik's manifesto, including references to the GPS coordinates of several major sites throughout Europe.

--Hemshaw (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"On a reliable secondary source"

Am I a "reliable secondary source"? I wouldn't like to live in a country, where you can't publish, because all that is published, has to be read and filtered by a "reliable secondary source". And then they lock you away in an isolation cell without contact to anyone, so you can't even write any more. Is that an Orwell way of spelling censorship?

I have quite a contrary idea. There are different 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence on the web. Let's collect, what we have got. In case we encounter conflicting cites, there is a chance to find out, what Breivik really said, and who published fraud. Let's find the primary source. By the way, I found nothing in 2083 that contradicts other information I have. There are a lot of interesing things in my version, for example Breivik saying, a Justiciar Knight wears a mini-camera during operation (shooting). I would like to know, if he filmed what happened in front of his shooting guns. Sannmann (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopaedia, not an amateur detective agency - and see WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like our version of the WP:TRUTH and disagree with one of the fundamental aspects of this project, why not go and start a blog or something with single-authorship? That way you wouldn't have to deal with all these pesky rules. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence

There are way too many citations in the opening sentence, including bare URLs. These need pruning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Initial reports

For quite a while after the incident (several days?) it was reported that two bombs, not one, had gone off in Oslo. It seems this should be addressed: when did the police announce that it had been only a single bomb, and why what accounts for the initial reports being erroneous? In addition, wasn't the death toll reported as being over 90 for the first few days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Convit (talk • contribs) 09:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It is quite normal for early reports about events like bombings, mass shootings etc to be incorrect - that is the nature of news reporting, when dealing with rapidly-unfolding complex events. Unless reliable sources discuss this issue in detail, there is no reason for us too - indeed, we can't as that would be synthesis AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, initial reports of the 2011 Tucson shooting incorrectly said that Gabrielle Giffords had been killed, but this often happens with early media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath: Non-ethnic Norwegian threatened to leave the subway-train.

The article is coming along well, as a "multi-cultural group hug". However, does anyone have any notable references about an incident of a passenger of the subway (T-bane) in Oslo being threatened by another passenger to leave, whereafter other passengers chimed in to threaten the (first) passenger out of the train?

That a majority or minority might think that the subject is not notable, is hereby noted in advance. Please start a seperate discussion about that subject.--Ønography (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

i am adding content right now. do you now have a reference for the t-bane incident or not?-- mustihussain (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My previous quote: "However, does anyone have any notable references about an incident of a passenger of the subway ... ?". If that does not answer your question, then I hereby add, "No, I am not in possession of notable references — and thereafter asking others if they have notable references."

Through search engines, I did not find any notable sources. My guess is you will receive more informative answers on a forum, where a majority of users are Norwegian muslims. (For the non-notable sources, I can not remember what string of search words finally gave a few results.) --Ønography (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference is here. This is one of Norway's nation-covering newspapers. http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article518621.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.29.128 (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on Muslims section

User:Ønography has three times re-added this poorly written and sourced section regarding attacks on Muslims. Could other editors chime in one whether the article needs anything like this whatsoever? As it hasn't been widely reported, it's my opinion that it's inappropriate per WP:WEIGHT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

the attacks on muslims have been widely reported in norway, and hence they should be mentioned. the problem is that the added section is badly written and inadequately sourced.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, but if we're going to say "widely reported," we'll need the sources to indicate so. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

no need to write "widely reported" in the article. here are some sources on the net: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. in addition, there are several offline articles like those mentioned by ønography.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please sort this out (preferably someone fluent in both Norwegian and English?) - the section has been inserted yet again, in spite of the obvious problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, i can sort it out but i'm too busy at the moment. however, in principle, ønography should participate in this discussion first.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just left a comment on Ønography's talk page regarding this - but there is no requirement that he/she participates in revising article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subject matter here but as there is clearly edit warring going on I have raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_at_2011_Norway_attacks. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sort it out? Either there is relevant text in the article or there is not. If there is not, I will add relevant text. And if there is text and it is inadequate (or wishy-washy/waffling) then I will make necessary edits — within the guidelines.--Ønography (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Since my version does not appeal to everyone, does anyone have any suggestions to text that includes the word "spit", "spitting" or "spat". (It might ruffle someones feelings, that people in Norway are occasionally spit on,the same day after a bombing. But this is Encyclopedia W-P — not Encyclopedia P.C.)--Ønography (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please confine the discussion to article content, rather than engaging in confused personal attacks. As far as I'm aware, nobody is attempting to conceal anything. What we are asking is that the article be written in coherent, grammatical English, based on sources that adequately support the content - something that you have failed to do so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A subdiscussion has been created so that you can elaborate on "personal attacks". My edits have had the sources. But not one specific problem about the grammar of the text has noted, yet. Vicarious motives, next station?--Ønography (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

just reverted your edit again. the section you keep re-adding is poorly written. absolutely no context is given, leaving the whole paragraph in middle of nowhere. the whole second sentence is written in a parentheses, and your third sentence starts with a "that"...! see how the norwegian wiki-article writes about the subject here: reaksjoner mot ikke-etniske nordmenn.-- mustihussain (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone can check the sources, then paraphrase that in grammatical English, it should be fine, judging from what Google translate makes of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

the sources are fine, however, i'm against paraphrasing. ønography should re-write his addition here on the talk page, in order to improve his collaboration and writing skills. no pain, no gain.-- mustihussain (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is getting silly. We agree that there needs to be a section on this, Ønography clearly lacks the language skills to do it. If you can read Norwegian enough to verify the sources, then just write the section yourself, mustihussain. We aren't here to give language lessons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, of course. i'm a native speaker. i'll paraphrase the content from the norwegian article. regarding ønography, i have a strong feeling that he'll continue to add nonsensical content either here or other places, and he'll do so as long as other editors do the clean-ups and to re-writes.-- mustihussain (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

done. could you please take a look? need feedback.-- mustihussain (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That should be fine. Maybe we could give some kind of indication as to how widespread this was, if we can find proper sourcing for it - I'm relying on Google translate here, which isn't really much help. It may be worth checking the English-language media too, to see if anything there is relevant - I'll take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

these racist assaults subsided when it was known that an ethnic norwegian, anders behring breivik, was the perpetrator. thus, the assaults occurred in a short time-span. how widespread they were are being investigated by different newspapers. i assume that more information will be available in the near future.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not found anything in major English-language media sources so far that goes into any real detail, though I'll keep looking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We might quite possibly be able to work with the present version, although that text (also?) is not adequately encyclopedic.

At present the text is stating that there was abuse, harassment ... spitting. So that must mean that spitting is not abuse or harassment.

"The media and terror experts": This part needs re-wording. First of all the text needs to name any of the "terror experts." (A "real expert" might say that there are certain similarities to an Al-Quaida attack, and wait to see what entitity/entities claim responsibility.) "The media" and "the NRK-website" are not synonyms.

All in all, the present version of the "spit on Muslims"-section is not hopeless.--Ønography (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's giving undue weight to something that is extremely trivial, also it is misleading. The fact that, shortly after the bomb, some people leapt to the assumption that it was Muslim terrorists is no surprise. It looks, to me, like tabloid-press trying to invent some storyline to write about. I don't consider it worth reporting.  Chzz  ►  13:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

To some extent I might agree. However, some of the reactions are probably significant (probably including the spitting. Note to myself: Check if muslims were spit upon after the London bombings or "nine-eleven").--Ønography (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

the issue is notable enough to get a whole section on the norwegian wiki. sources like nrk are not part of the tabloid-press either. however, i have shortened the sentences further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 August 2011

We are not Norwegian wiki. Let the discussion page here, lead you — not the version in Norwegian. I have re-inserted the words "spitting" and "assault" — something you have tried to incorporate into the vague words, "harassment" and "violence". The words "spitting" and "assault" help illustrate the level to which the events reached. (Violence can include murders. Now the text establishes that murders were not part of the reactions which affected non-ethnic norwegians. The spitting is notable enough for the main text — it helps illustrate that the harassment went beyond verbal abuse. Please don't remove these 2 words, "assault" and "spitting" again.--Ønography (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What does this reference say that is notable?

The reference "Kadra: - Muslimer ble jaget nedover gatene", [21] reports verbal abuse and hearsay (what Kadra heard from her friend). If noboby can tell me which quote in this article illustrates something notable, than we might consider moving this link to "external link", or remove.--Ønography (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is getting to be childish. There were individual harrassment episodes against Moslems in Norway. It happened. The media has reported widely about it. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.29.128 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor use of sources

It has apparently not occurred to anyone that Breivik's own manifesto hardly constitutes a reliable source ? Very large chunks of this article recount events based on what he's said about himself and his deeds in his manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.249 (talk) 03:46, 16 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)

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)

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)

2011-09 false flag

For the record, according to Baron Bodissey, The Breivik Portfolio, Part Four: The Dot-Connection, Gates of Vienna, 2011-08-29, the 2011 Norway attacks might be a false flag with "smokescreen", because "From the point of view of those who would like nothing better than to discredit the Counterjihad movement and drive its adherents out of business, the list was complete. The killer’s favorite authors read like a who’s-who of the resistance to Islamization. [...] Mr. Breivik’s internet bookmarks eerily resembled an “enemies list” as compiled by CAIR or the OIC. [...] Only a setup [...] can account for the uncanny fit of Anders Behring Breivik’s preferred reading material. " Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE on that material, WP:SOAPBOX on your posting, and WP:RELEVANT as to the place you are posting this.--Cerejota (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Any word on the nicotine tests?

More than a month ago it was published that lab tests were being done to see if Breivik actually used nicotine in bullets as he said. I am personally skeptical of this - see e.g. [22] which questions whether the nicotine would survive the heat of a fired bullet. But he did buy a drill press for the purpose of inserting the nicotine in the bullets. [23] I just have a hard time imagining that you could play with a hundred amateurishly sealed nicotine bullets without poisoning yourself. Anyway, I'm not finding any updates on this in web searches, but surely the data must be in by now, isn't it? Wnt (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? --Cerejota (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well just for example it would allow us to decide whether to categorize this article as a chemical weapon attack or not. But mostly it's just plain interesting, and what other article would such information belong in, and it would be better to have a source that says what the results are than one which says we're waiting to hear. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

In "Oslo bombing" section, regarding to reference [48], the time should be 15:13:43 instead of 17:13:43 as it misinforms now.

Froofrie (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Done! Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please create a link to article about Marcel Gleffe

There now is an article about the first person to rescue refugees (from the island of Utøya) — Marcel Gleffe. His name is mentioned in the article "2011 Norway attacks". Can someone please create a link from his name, to the article about him?--155.55.60.112 (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Breivik claimed in his manifesto"

Wouldn't it be better to say

• "in an e-mail that was sent (to several hundred ...) before the bombing of"
• "in a compendium that was e-mailed (to ..). before the bombing of"--155.55.60.112 (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Erlbaeko, 24 November 2011

In the section "Utøya massacre" please, change "boarded a ferry at Tyrifjorden" to "boarded the ferry MS Thorbjørn at Utøykaia in Tyrifjorden" Erlbaeko (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Zidanie5 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Erlbaeko, 25 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section "Shortage of transport capacity" please, change "When at the shore, the police could not find a suitable boat to reach the island.[citation needed]" to "When the local police arraive at Utøykaia less than 30 minutes after the first shoot was fired, they culd not find a "suitable boat" to reach the island.".

The clause: "The boat they finally located almost sank because their equipment was so heavy; they had to continuously bail out water as they made the crossing.[97]" is not correct and should be deleted. The reference article is full of errors and shuld be removed as well.

Clarification: The police initially used their own boat. It was transported from Hønefoss police station. The boat took in some water when the Delta force board it at Storøya. The engine stopped after a few hundred meters, probabely due to water in the gasoline. They therfore took over a sivilian boat. The episode is captured on video and are available here: Origianl video A minutte or two after the video ends, another sivilian boat arrives to help out. The couple in that boat was risking their life to get four police officers to Utøya as quick as possible. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There you go. The statement that the police used their boat which was transferred from Hønefoss needs a citation. I did see that the boat was only rated for 10 people, but that 11 officers boarded the boat (and that each officer carried about 30 extra pounds of equipment), which I didn't add into the section. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Banaticus. It is correct that 9 officers boarded the boat at Storøya (one local officer and 8 from Delta). Together with the 2 local police officers which already were in the boat, it adds up to 11 to me... The Delta-forces own RIB-boats are much more powerful and capable of transport 11 heavily armed officers, so it seems like an honest miscalculation. The driver of the red RIB-boat tells his story to Bt.no here: The driver of the civilian boat the police first took over (captured on video her), tells his story here: The civilian couple who transported the first four Delta officers to Utøya tells their story to TV 2 here: Erlbaeko (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but as far as I can tell, no edit is needed? If it is, pls re-request with a new {{edit semi-protected}}. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I was finally able to edit it myself, so I did. :) I am afraid my English is bad, so feel free to fix it. At least the facts are correct now. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Section 9 "After Effects"

The first paragraph of section 9 is poorly written. It should read, "...a chain of retails stores in Norway, is removing several video game brands from its shelves..." The paragraph does not specifiy the subject is video games until it lists several video game titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberMurph (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it time for killing the "automatic archiving after 2 days"

"This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 2 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived" is displayed near the top of this discussion page.

(If someone can move to have this automatic archiving stopped, then that person hereby has special power of attorney to speak and act on my behalf.

Is anyone else in favor, to have this archiving stopped?--85.196.118.210 (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if removing it altogether is a wise thing, but have (hopefully) changed it so it archives less frequently. It's not like there is much activity anyway now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Non-ethnic Norwegians, especially Muslim Norwegians, were subjected to spitting and other forms of harassment, and violence."

Although widely reported in the days after the attack, later investigation by media, police and anti-discrimination organizations have failed to find even a single occurrence of this: these reports were based solely on hearsay. Article on the subject: [24] --83.227.39.146 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Abb politibilder mo 941995i.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abb politibilder mo 941995i.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 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) 23:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Extremist versus Anti-Multiculturalist and WP: LABEL Contentious label

Extremist is a generic term that does not specify anything. It is also a contentious label in direct violation with Wikipedia guidelines (WP: LABEL). As such, the term "Anti-Multiculturalist" is a more descriptive term that specifies the political believes of Anders Behring Breivik as opposed to simply "extremist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motstand1 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article you cite ([25]) is apparently written by "guest blogger Alex O'Connor" - we have no evidence that this person is in any way a significant source. In any case, it also describes Breivil as "a crazed madman" - though it actually states that the author "[doesn't] wish to say much about Breivik", and instead "want[s] to focus on the media's coverage of Breivik's ideologies and the extent his ideas are reflective of a broader audience". Your use of this source to describe Breivik as an "anti-multiculturalist" is thus entirely unsupportable from the source cited. Meanwhile, Reuters, (and many other sources) have described Breivik as an 'extremist' and there is no reason whatsoever why our article shouldn't reflect this (of course it is possible to be both 'an anti-multiculturalist' and 'an extremist' at the same time, so even if the former is correct, it doesn't justify the removal of the latter). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article I site is published by Psychology Today, a reputable magazine and blog for and by professionals of psychiatry, under the name of Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, a reputable Ph.D at the Psychology Department of Colombia University in Berkley, California. This is by all means a significant source.

In conjunction with the article focusing on the media's coverage of Breivik's ideologies and the extent his ideas are reflective of a broader audience, it directly states that “Breivik is clearly anti-multiculturalist”. And as opposed to simply extremist, this is a precise description of the ideology and political beliefs of Anders Behring Breivik.

Also, the term extremist is in itself in direct violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch as a contentious label. Motstand1 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The context here is "right-wing extremist", not "extremist" on its own. Anyway

• anti-multiculuralist – 15,400 hits [26]. Limiting it to after 25 July and the "sensational" effect of the weekend has been toned down, victim numbers corrected, and people had time to read and think through a lot more stuff, then the search results are 239 hits [27]
• extremist – 7,610,000 hits [28]. After 25 July, 245,000 hits [29]

I think you would be able to get some similar results using another search engine too. In both search results a lot of rubbish is included. -Laniala (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you search the term multiculturalism you get 2 110 000 hits on Google. As anti-multiculturalist is a derivate of multiculturalism, it is a well-known and precise description of Breivik’s ideology and ideas, as opposed to simply extremist.

Besides, right-wing extremist or left-wing extremist, they are both terms in direct violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch as a contentious label.

Motstand1 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". Reliable sources have widely described Breivik as a right-wing extremist - and we attribute this description to sources. As for your comments on "anti-multiculturalist" see WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you search for the word "multiculturalism" alone you get over 2 million hits. If you add the that the mention of Breivik needs to be in the article too, then you're down below 200,000 hits (and that is being generous). The other part Andy responded to. But being "anti-culturalist" does not exclude him from being a "right-wing extremist" too, so maybe you should consider trying to argue to get that word added along with the other words, instead of just replacing the other word. -Laniala (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Characterization by police officials as an Islamophobe and WP: Verifiability

The New York Times, as the given source, does not at all confirm that Anders Behring Breivik is characterized by police officials as an Islamophobe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motstand1 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

From the source cited: [30]

After the shooting the police seized a 32-year-old Norwegian man on the island, according to the police and Justice Minister Knut Storberget. He was later identified as Anders Behring Breivik and characterized by officials as a right-wing extremist, citing previous writings including on his Facebook page.

The acting police chief, Sveinung Sponheim, said the suspect’s Internet postings “suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but if that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen.”

There are plenty of sources available that have described Breivik as being anti-Islam, being a right-wing extremist etc. In fact, there seem to be few sources that describe his views that don't characterise him in this way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is the particular source, The New York Times, is NOT quoting police officials characterizing Breivik as Islamophobe, thus this claim is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Motstand1 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The source says that the police chief described Breivik as having "some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views". Islamophobia is a right-wing anti-Muslim belief system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Mostand is right on this one. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that the police were calling him an islamophobe without the police actually doing that. It's better to use the words that the source employs. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Breivik and Eurabia thesis

Is the sentence "If Europe has already succumbed to dhimmitude and become Eurabia and if its ruling elites are completely complicity its enslavement to Islam, and thus democratic resistance is no longer possible, Breivik’s answer is not irrational." in Michael Sells, Breivik, Trifkovic, and Bat Ye'or, worth mentioning in the article? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No. If only because it seems not to be Sell's opinion: instead he seems to be offering an interpretation of how Srđa Trifković would see the question - though it is difficult to understand exactly what Sells is trying to say. Is this a published document, or a draft? If it is published, where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a draft, and it is not published elsewhere. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't use unpublished draft documents as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Thank you for your answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox map

Alt1 1 2 3 1 Oslo government quarter 2 Utøya island 3 Closest police station (Hønefoss)	Alt 2
Alt 3	Alt 4 Government quarter (Oslo) Utøya island

What would be the opinion on changing the infobox map to this map, with either of these methods to mark the locations? (Don't think it will be that much excess space inside an actual infobox, if it gets placed there.)

Or should be (relatively) easy to scale and add or remove what is (not) useful, and maybe put somewhere else in the article to provide visual clues to the text. -Laniala (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the one on the left and think we should use that instead of the map that is currently in place. I also find the in the Breivik Geofarm section quite poor at conveying the location of his farm related to other known locations. Perhaps we could have a similar map there? __meco (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Figured out why the {{Overlay}} method (alt. 1) used that much excess space, but I get a parsing error when trying a preview inside the Infobox. *ponder* So added two more additional methods that are more or less based on {{Image label}} and manual numbering. Maybe one of those methods could be used? Just as with alt 1 the text colours can be changed btw, and what info is shown inside the map can be added and removed.

As for the Breivik Geofarm, the satellite maps from NASA are pretty clouded over the Hamar area. Although Åsta is cloudless, it might look a bit weird with white dots covering much of the area, I'll see if I maybe can find another drawn map for the area which also includes Oslo and Utøya. -Laniala (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that having a marker for the closest police station is odd. I don't see why that should be a reference point on the map. __meco (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I added the police station was because there has been so much criticism against the police for using so long time to apprehend Breivik, and I just wanted to show that the closest police station isn't a couple of blocks away, but is quite a distance. And while I personally think they could have done thing better, this is extremely easy to say afterwards when you know everything that happened. Anyway... -Laniala (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it should be removed. Also, your reasoning is a bit of original synthesis. There are two locations that define these attacks. Just as a thought experiment, if you ask 100 people what the third significant location related to the 2011 Norway Attacks, aside from the two targets, I doubt even one would mention the nearest police station. It may be an interesting point of reference, but the graphics on the display makes it appear to have equal significance to the two attack sites. __meco (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you point. So replace the current one with alternative 4, and see if it gets more attention from other editors then? Or maybe alt 3, but without the mark for the police station? That is, the text in/on the picture, or below it?

I like alternative 3 without the police station. I think having the text on the map is ok. And as you write, once the replacement is done in the article, more voices are likely to appear if this isn't the optimal solution. __meco (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Why was my latest edits reverted? (I was logged in as Huuuuuuuuh) The edits fixed a couple of errors/problems with the old version and, to my understanding, did not introduce anything bad! Can you please tell us why you reverted the edits? If nobody can give a reason for the revert, we should revert it back i think! Huuuuuuuuh2 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't explain why Meco reverted you, but from my point of view there are at least two problems:

1) Breivik's compendium is NOT a reliable source, and thus should not be added as a reference. All the newspaper-articles using the compendium as their only source are also not reliable (which actually many newspapers did in the days right after the attacks). The Norwegian police has in their investigations uncovered a lot of lies/false claims Breivik wrote in that document.

2) Your edit removes a lot of the newlines and multiple spaces in the article, which made it more reader-friendly in edit mode. The way you have inserted your edits also makes it difficult to find out what you actually did (diff-view), so I apologize if my edit also removed some of your good edits. If I may recommend, you should be more careful about how you insert copy-edited text. -Laniala (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

1) The manifesto was ALREADY used as a source, I just replaced the manifesto from a personal blog with the manifesto from the washington times, which I thought was much better. If we really shouldn't link to the compendium (which I think we should, somewhere) plese just remove the link, NOT revert everything including lots of fixes.

2) I removed the blank lines because many of the section titles didn't have them and I thought the article should be consistent. The same for the spaces. If it is better to have new lines, You or I can just add them, to ALL sections.

Do you really think it is better to have 50% sections with a new line and 50% without new line, and lots of references with bare urls etc. Instead of 100% of the sections with/without new line, consistent throughout the article, and filled references etc??

I'll revert you now, please do not simply revert. If you think new lines after section titles is that important, just tell me and I will inseart them for you. To ALL sections, not only SOME of them! If something is wrong with the spaces, tell my and I will fix them. If a ref is unreliable, remove it. It is very contraproductive to revert lots of god edits because of a few mistakes which are easy to fix! Huuuuuuuuh2 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I added new lines to all the headings now. Is that better? If there is something wrong with my edits, please tell me and I can fix it. Please do not simply revert everything, including lots of god fixes! Huuuuuuuuh2 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And for the other spaces I removed. I actually thought it would be Easier to read if all references was like " |publisher=" instead of the earlier mix of "| publisher =" and " | publisher = " and "|publisher=" and "|publisher = " etc. Huuuuuuuuh2 (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, text that relies on the compendium as the only source should in my opinion be removed, not have references to the compendium added. But that is my opinion only.

As for (removals of) newlines and multiple spaces, I didn't say I was against you removing them. I only said that your removals of them makes it very difficult to figure out what the entire edit as a whole actually added/removed when you look at the diff. And when the newlines/spaces isn't actually your main intention of your edits, it may perhaps be wiser to just let them be left alone, as the difficulty in figuring out what you did may have been the reason why your first account got autoflagged by a bot. -Laniala (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did remove spaces/new lines in separate edits. When I replaced references etc, I wrote edit summeries and I did not do lots of other cleanups in the same edits. It is only a problem if you check all the edits at once, but we can't ban people to make more than one edit in a row?

As for the manifesto, you may be correct. I don't know what the best thing to do is. But simply removing the link to the manifesto at the whasington times and reinsert the link to the manifesto at a personal blog doesn't seem like a good solution to me :S Huuuuuuuuh2 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

PS. I'm not really fond of the "I don't have the energy to check the edit so I assume it is bad"-mentality. It is understandable that one can not always check everything too carefully, but it is often deteriorative to simply revert. I have seen lots of good edits made by other editors reverted because of this. Huuuuuuuuh2 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but when I see a lot of edits made by the same user, I don't usually check each and every edit, but start out with just comparing the beginning state end the end state. Like this last edit line of yours [31]. As said, I don't know why Meco reverted you, but when you see something that doesn't look good (especially in the second edit line of yours [32], it's probably too easy to assume the rest isn't up-to-par good either. For that I can only apologize. But that is why I also mentioned it might be wise to just let especially newlines that doesn't affect the end outcome be left untouched. It does make it easier to see if the contribution is useful, needs some help, or right out is vandalism, without having to read through the whole article (again). (And to be honest, I still haven't figured out all of your edits, since the advanced diffEd seems to be timing out.) And it will make it much less likely a bot will autoflag your edits. They are just bots, and just as humans they too can make mistakes. -Laniala (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You can read why I reverted at User talk:Meco#2011 Norway attacks. Familiar? __meco (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Naming

This article is in dire need of renaming. It is currently quite patronising as it suggests no other attack took place in Norway last year. I can't envisage such an attack taking place in London after which an article is named 2012 United Kingdom attacks. Rather, they are named after the local area. I suggest renaming to 2011 Oslo attacks. Welshleprechaun 19:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How are these kinds of events usually named on English Wikipedia? (I haven't searched so don't know.) Regardless, just naming it Oslo attacks would not be correct, as it happened at two places: Both Oslo and Utøya. And I'm curious what other attacks in Norway you are referring to that happened in 2011? (Although I suppose the answer depends on what you define as "attack".) -Laniala (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I also see no reason to change the title. People in Norway, at least according to the narrative presented by the mainstream media, ubiquitously think of these attacks as a national disaster. Nobody considers this an Oslo event. __meco (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mean, Mode and Median

The mean is the average The median is the middle number in a list The mode is the most common number in a list

This page however doesnt have a median and has put the mode as a median. i tried fixing it but i think i just screwed it up more, can someone please put the mean mode and median in properly they should be as follows when looking at the list of casualties.

Oslo: mean:40.3 mode:32 median:33 Utoya: mean:19.6 mode:18 median:18

i tried doing it but i think i messed up[ the table if someone can fix the table the numbers should be fine now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.230.241 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? Could you explain a bit more please? As far as I can see the numbers were correct the way they were listed. Although they didn't have the mode, that number is in my opinion pretty obvious from the way the tables are listed (that is, fairly easy to see which numbers occurs the most). -Laniala (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Add President Obama's comments

USA President Obama expressed sorrow at the attacks. It is not mentioned in this article.

However, another editor thought that Obama's condolences are important as related to Dick Clark's death. Clark was not a politician but a TV host. The opinion given was essentially that everything a USA President says is Wikipedia material or something like that. That other editor may have a point but I am not so sure.

Should USA President Obama's comments be allowed in any article where he makes a comment or condolence, including this one? Auchansa (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama's reaction is detailed in International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks. Given the format of the abbreviated section on international reactions in the present article, it would seem inappropriate to mention Obama's reaction here. __meco (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Authorities believe it was a lone bomber/shooter

The article says he had 2011_Norway_attacks#Possible_accomplices. The police no longer think that is likely. If someone finds a good source, could you add it to the subsection? --Javaweb (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Definitions: was this really terrorism?

Were these attacks really terrorism? Or were they political violism? Terrorism is meant to cause intense fear by attacking random targets (though the attacks may be well-planned). These attacks however, were meant to give Breivik’s manifesto “necessary attention”. He also aimed to kill named people and inflict damage on the Labour party (the bomb was supposed to neutralize the police). He did not want to kill the people he views as “civilians” (which in Breivik’s messed-up world means non-Labour party people) and even apologized to those victims that were not members of the Labour party. The majority of the Norwegian population did not have to fear a repeated attack as he sought to attack some 4000 named people and not random targets. Terrorist also seek to force people to listen to them by threatening them. This madman instead wanted to “wake people up” so that they would see things the way he does (which he believes people eventually will anyway, but he is fearing they will when it is too late).

Another thing is what WP:LABEL tells us, which is to avoid words like “extremist”, “terrorist” or “freedom fighter”. I think the attacks are unforgiveable, but still I believe things should be described correctly. I understand that it may be tempting to use labels in order to create a distance between the Breivik and oneself, but it will not help anybody … 83.109.102.211 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the OED, terrorism is generally defined as "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". That sounds pretty much like ABB's acts; nevermind the fact that many reliable sources describe him as a terrorist anyway. Your comment looks like pure WP:OR to me. Also, violism? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that one. I speak English as a second language and was mixing violence with vandalism/terrorism for some reason. What I meant was of course violence, which by the way is a word I rarely use. I reviewed my post before I submitted and even though that word caught my attension I just could not figure out what was wrong with it, so I clicked “Save page” and fell asleep. On topic: I am not trying to make things up (WP:OR), I have just compared the definitions I have read to the things that the newspapers have told me. There is a discussion up here already, but I find no conclusion. WP:LABEL is amongst the arguments. Through the article’s history the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” have been removed and reintroduced several times. I have also heard from a friend who is studying this stuff outside Norway that while these actions are considered terrorism in Norway, several non-Norwegians experts/professors have a different opinion. I do not know if it is true or not – and that is why I asked. 83.109.103.222 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC) (Looks like my ISP has decided to give me a new IP address)

Issue with a statistic in the introduction

"1 in 4 Norwegians knew a victim affected by the attacks." This is taken from the introduction, and this statistic has been bothering me for some time - I've arrived at the conclusion that it's simply not practical. I'm unable to verify its source, as it is in Norwegian, and I haven't been able to find it anywhere else.. I'm removing it for now, as it seems to imply a plague-like catastrophe, which, as sad as this event was, this is not.

Here's my mathematical basis for not believing this statistic, and take into account that the word 'affected' is very vague.. I'll interpret it twice, once assuming that it refers to the direct victims of the attack, and once assuming family members are included.

77 people were killed in the attacks, and 319 injured. For ease of calculation, let's round that up to an even 400. Norway has a population of approximately 5,003,000 people - let's round that down to 5,000,000. Now, 1 in 4 Norwegians would be 1,250,000 Norwegians (a staggering amount, and a staggering statistic, which is why I've taken such an issue with it).. In order for each of them to know one of the 400 people, an average victim in the attack would have to know 3125 people; this figure is completely unrealistic.

Now let's assume that "affected" also covers the family of the victim. For sake of argument, let's say that each and every person has a family of size 10; in my opinion, this is quite liberal, especially considering the victims who were already family, meaning they have shared family members. Given this statistic, we can say 4000 people were affected by the attack, and each one of them would have to know, on average, 312.5 people... Now, this figure is slightly more reasonable, but not reasonable enough.

Unless someone can justify this statistic, perhaps with a better definition of the word "affected," I'm removing it from the introduction.. It's a biased, baseless statistic. 85.65.12.162 (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a strange number, yes. As it read later in this article, the number stems from a particlar survey. The news paper article says that the survey had 1000 participants and was carried out through 10 to 16 August. I suppose "knew" in this case could mean that you have e.g. met the person or known the name someone affected before the incident; that could make sense out of the numbers. Signed by a Norwegian who knows no one affected; no matter of definition. Njardarlogar (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The main reason for having that statistics there was in my opinion to show *why* this event got so huge, and still does one year later, media attention in Norway. One thing is that terror is not normal in Norway, but the actual scope of how many it affected and to better put it into perspective for non-locals.

Just because you don't like the statistics doesn't mean it isn't true. If you didn't understand the cited reference used, maybe you should have tried to use Google translate instead of just removing it, and trying to make your own hypothesis about why the number is wrong.

Most of all, you seem to forget that there were more people than those who got some kind of physical wounds of any kind. There were at least 250 people inside the government buildings when the explosion happened. Several hundreds were in the areas and buildings around the government complex. Several thousands were in the city centre and could both hear and feel the explosion quite well and many had glass shards from broken windows or merchandise inside the shops raining on them without being physically injured. Probably the most visited street in Oslo is just 200 meters away from the government complex, well within the 1 km radius of which the explosion could be heard and felt.

On Utøya there were 564 persons at the time the events started. Many of them were/are local politicians, or aspiring politicians, so it would not be weird for them to know many other in the local community, or that many in the local community had some indication of who they or their parents were. The Labour Party and its youth organisation is also the biggest political party in Norway (at least at the time). Many of them were/are still in school and thus whole school classes would know a person on the island, and as an aspiring politician they were probably well known outside just their own class too, possibly making it so the majority on the school knew who they are/were. Then you can finally add the bereaved, and everybody that knew them and all they know through politics and work relationships, and normal family relationship.

Taking all that into account I do not think the statistics is wrong at all, and the article itself actually discusses/discussed the survey and what it meant to "know" someone affected, and that it was a fairly open definition. -Laniala (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the percentage of how many people that were affected has much to do with the media coverage. You rarely see arbitrary people talking about how they were affected in the Norwegian media, or elsewhere. You mainly see people that were either on Utøya, or in the governement quarters either during or shortly after the explosion. In any usually 'peaceful' country, such an event would dominate the headlines for a long time, regardless of how much of the population that was directly/indirectly affected. This event has also received considerable foreign media coverage all the way since it happened. Once the verdict is announced, otherwise something major and unforeseen happens in the meantime, the Norway attacks will grab a lot of headlines once more.

As for the survey itself, I am not sure if it should be mentioned in the intro, given that it is was neither precise nor thorough. To under score this, I introduced quotation marks. Njardarlogar (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Further News on Trial

The last piece of information about the trial of the perpetrator says that his trial will begin on April 16th, 2012. That was three months ago. What has happened since then? That part needs to be updated.

Writerchic99 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Oslo and Utøya attacks

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page at this time. Dekimasuよ! 21:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

---

2011 Norway attacks → Oslo and Utøya attacks – Was surprised when coming here to see this still referred to under the cumbersome title "2011 Norway attacks". Some time has passed, 2011 is gone, we now know that they are over, there were only two attack locations. The association with the locations Oslo and Utøya is prominent and is constantly referred to by the international media. As a precedent for this sort of dual location thing there exists Dublin and Monaghan bombings, an example that also includes a capital city and a location elsewhere in the same country. Was originally going to include the year in the proposed title but this would probably be unnecessary as it is not included in that example. This would continue the established convention, i.e. Wikipedia goes with Oklahoma City bombing, not 1995 U.S. bombing. The current title would redirect, as should Oslo and Utoya attacks. 86.40.96.41 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I can't say that I believe the current title is best but "Norway attacks" [33] still produces a disproportionately number of news hits than "Oslo and Utøya attacks"[34]. "Breivik massacre" produces more hits,[35], but still not as many as the current title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Granted that "Norway attacks" is a vaguer phrase, it looks to be much more common from a quick Google search. Can you support your assertion that the proposed form is more common? Note that we will favor the forms used in English-language media. I'm not convinced by the examples, either. No one calls them the Ireland bombings or the US bombing—unfortunately, those are both plenty ambiguous phrases. I would have thought your proposal would make sense for the Norwegian Wikipediae, but their incumbent titles are telling. One uses Norway, rather than a city, as an identifier, and the other only uses the date. No, our current title is the best based on usage in reliable English-language sources. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Rename to Oslo and Utøya massacre. It was essentially one massacre though split between two places. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Further suggestion --Oslo massacres, 2011. We are looking for a long term name. We normally name murders by the victim, not the perpetator; we normally name massacres by the place. Utøya is an island near Oslo, of which none of us had heard until these events. My suggestion is thus to limit the name to the well-known city - or perhaps that should be anotehr redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Is it really correct to refer to a bomb attack (indirectly), at least one like the Oslo bombing, as a massacre? Njardarlogar (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support for the rename although I don't really have strong objections to the current title either as it is also clear and unambiguous enough. Looking through the categories of terrorist attacks, the location mentioned in the title tends to be a city rather than a country, something that would support the proposed rename. (As a sidenote, Britannica's title is "Oslo and Utøya attacks of 2011"[36]). Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, my impression is that Norwegian media tends to refer to this by the date, that is "22 July attacks", or even just "22 July". For an English encyclopedia, a title based on that would probably be too ambiguous to work though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - "2011 Norway attacks" is rather vague, but is more common. Besides, what other notable attack happened in Norway in 2011 other than this? One example that might work happened in 2012 Aurora shooting, as shown on this edit. When we hear "2012 Aurora shooting", we think of the movie shooting, rather than the church one. Same could possibly apply here, as when we say "2011 Norway attacks", we think of this one, instead of any other random attack that may have happened. ZappaOMati 22:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Frangible ammunition "causes more tissue damage" highly questionable

Frangible ammunition is designed as training ammunition; and to reduce ricochet and over-penetration risks in limited close quarter scenarios. It breaks up into powder when it hits *hard* objects. When it hits soft tissue it performs like FMJ. There is no evidence it increases tissue damage, only hyped marketing claims and highly questionable anecdotes. In fact because of their light mass, they tend to penetrate tissue less. One vague quote from a magazine article does not change that. If there are any *reputable* scientific ballistic tests that indicate frangible ammunition causes any significant increase in tissue damage, then please cite *that* instead. Otherwise someone needs to reword the misleading sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.129.34 (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

I have removed the median and modus from the tables of the victims' ages (as pointless trivia), and kept the average age, rounded to whole years (which wording I believe is preferable to "mean age"). This is not an article about statistics! (I wanted to remove this statistic as well, but changed my mind.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Why did you change your mind about not removing the average age? - It's too sad to do the math on this but just looking at the table I would guess 3/4 of the victims were not even 20 years old. So that average number you left in place is in my opinion useless too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.130.233 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Label for the Progress Party

As per [this edit, why is it necessary to label the political affiliation of the Progress Party in the first place? And if we are going to label the Progress Party, why not go with something it has self-identified with? Gobbleygook (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright so to recap about this edit, it was removed because of WP:BURDEN, unsourced and because it could be UNDUE to call it a right-wing populist party when other description of the Progress Party exist. Gobbleygook (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of intro

i think that "55" should probably be spelled out as "fifty-five", as in the preceding paragraph, 12 (the seriously injured) was written out as "twelve".

i was confused for a minute by the appearance of this: ("...110, 55..."), taking it to be a large number of some kind. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No law enforcement?

I would like to know if there was any kind of law enforcement after the event. It's rare that a governement respond to terror with something else than a "patriot act" or "vigipirate". --BiBoN (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

See the article on Anders Behring Breivik, sections arrest and preparations for trial and post trial, as well as the article on the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. Short summary: The perpetrator was arrested, tried and convicted in accordance with existing laws. No new laws were passed, and little in the way of lasting knee-jerk reactions took place. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Did the police rules change? Especially (1) rules on police officers being/not being armed and (2) rules of engagement of active shooter (in the Czech Republic, the main rule is to engage immediately, if the attacker has more effective firearms then it is about finding a good cover and constantly keeping the attacker occupied/pinned down with pistol fire until the SWAT arrives and terminates the threat, some other countries like UK have the rule to seal off the area of attack and wait for SWAT without direct engagement by common street cops with the attacker being free to do as he wishes before arrival of SWAT). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

1) Not as far as I know - the recent terror scare means that police armed themselves last fall though. 2) Tactics and procedures is not something the police tends to discuss openly for obvious reasons, so I've no way of knowing - we have very few / infrequent shooters in Norway, meaning there isn't mush written in the media about it. It did lead to a number of specialised military units (helicopters and special forces) being placed on readiness to aid the police if/when the police requests it - thankfully this has not yet been needed.WegianWarrior (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 43 external links on 2011 Norway attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029075640/http://helsedirektoratet.no/publikasjoner/lering-for-bedre-beredskap-/Sider/default.aspx to http://helsedirektoratet.no/publikasjoner/lering-for-bedre-beredskap-/Sider/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110909043438/http://www.vg.no:80/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/ofre/ to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/ofre/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111123175220/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080895 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080895
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110912110627/http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/society/oslo-killer-sought-weapons-prague%E2%80%99s-underworld to http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/society/oslo-killer-sought-weapons-prague%E2%80%99s-underworld
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807091559/http://www.dn.no:80/forsiden/politikkSamfunn/article2189178.ece to http://www.dn.no/forsiden/politikkSamfunn/article2189178.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110820101242/http://m.nrk.no/m/artikkel.jsp?art_id=17724894 to http://m.nrk.no/m/artikkel.jsp?art_id=17724894
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110627025138/http://auf.no:80/-/page/show/utoya?sandbox_id=1063610 to http://auf.no/-/page/show/utoya?sandbox_id=1063610
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725033627/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/nyheter/iriks/article4181699.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4181699.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725031759/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080715 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080715
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111227123522/http://www.vestreviken.no:80/aktuelt/nyheter/Sider/--dere-har-reddet-liv.aspx to http://www.vestreviken.no/aktuelt/nyheter/Sider/--dere-har-reddet-liv.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111211133751/http://www.vg.no:80/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10030903 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10030903
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111123175255/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080811 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080811
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110901045108/http://www.vg.no:80/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10097733 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10097733
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121218005740/http://nrk.no:80/minnetavle/ to http://nrk.no/minnetavle/#13573238454461&height=1690&id=iframe970px
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120107032431/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j0D-1Q4Rg2RzAcXi1tCYJgK3PNuw?docId=CNG.d605a2923da5a34248120fc4eb7dc2c7.691 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j0D-1Q4Rg2RzAcXi1tCYJgK3PNuw?docId=CNG.d605a2923da5a34248120fc4eb7dc2c7.691
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110910205259/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2011/07/25/breivik_s_swamp?page=0,1 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/breivik_s_swamp?page=0,1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111204041707/http://www.newsroompanama.com:80/panama/3115-bigotry-a-stepping-stone-to-extreme-action.html to http://www.newsroompanama.com/panama/3115-bigotry-a-stepping-stone-to-extreme-action.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727181145/https://www.faz.net/artikel/C32742/der-attentaeter-im-internet-im-blinden-hass-gegen-hass-30473075.html to http://www.faz.net/artikel/C32742/der-attentaeter-im-internet-im-blinden-hass-gegen-hass-30473075.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111005190214/http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2011-07-27/20837/Norwegian_mass_murderer_Breivik_comments_on_Croat-Serb_relations_in_his_manifesto to http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2011-07-27/20837/Norwegian_mass_murderer_Breivik_comments_on_Croat-Serb_relations_in_his_manifesto
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120412194315/http://www.ibtimes.com:80/articles/186020/20110725/anders-breivik-manifesto-shooter-bomber-downplayed-religion-secular-influence-key.htm to http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/186020/20110725/anders-breivik-manifesto-shooter-bomber-downplayed-religion-secular-influence-key.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807120037/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080627 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080627
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807205235/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080633 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080633
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726065318/http://www.vg.no:80/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080609 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080609
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120211093533/http://www.regjeringen.no:80/en/dep/smk/Whats-new/Speeches-and-articles/statsministeren/statsminister_jens_stoltenberg/2011/address-by-prime-minister-in-oslo-cathed.html? to http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/Whats-new/Speeches-and-articles/statsministeren/statsminister_jens_stoltenberg/2011/address-by-prime-minister-in-oslo-cathed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110811083523/http://nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7726484 to http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7726484
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110811083523/http://nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7726484 to http://nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7726484
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120121103054/http://m.nrk.no/m/artikkel.jsp?art_id=17723020 to http://m.nrk.no/m/artikkel.jsp?art_id=17723020
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807203929/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10088913 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10088913
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110822232706/http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article518621.ece to http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article518621.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807211328/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10088956 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10088956
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807211410/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10080775 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10080775
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110729220305/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4183971.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4183971.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111118180444/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10039908 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10039908
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111026203848/http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7753723 to http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7753723
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111117052555/http://www.domstol.no/upload/OBYR/Internett/Nyheter/Kjennelse%20-%20lukking%20av%20d%C3%B8rer.pdf to http://www.domstol.no/upload/OBYR/Internett/Nyheter/Kjennelse%20-%20lukking%20av%20d%C3%B8rer.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111123175331/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080776 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080776
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111123175231/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080853 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080853
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110901044411/http://www.vg.no:80/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10081251 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10081251
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110909035339/http://www.vg.no:80/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10081294 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10081294
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120121095441/http://www.nrk.no:80/nyheter/norge/1.7875413 to http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7875413
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120815224835/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/news/world/report-blasts-police-response-to-norway-massacre/article4478381/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/report-blasts-police-response-to-norway-massacre/article4478381/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120517201704/http://www.dagsavisen.no/samfunn/skutt-pa-kloss-hold/ to http://www.dagsavisen.no/samfunn/skutt-pa-kloss-hold/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120822100326/http://www.nrk.no:80/minnetavle/ to http://nrk.no/minnetavle/

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.