While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
On 28 August 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Oslo and Utøya attacks. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Attention editors
Please note that the Anders Behring Breivik "manifesto" (2083 - A European Declaration of Independence) is considered a primary source, and its use must adhere to the relevant Wikipedia policy. In short, editors are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate his manifesto into this article. Any interpretation of the manifesto must be based on a reliable secondary source.
it said to check the talk page for the opening line statement of terrorist (which is also unsoruced) but i found nothing and since WP:Consensus can change the word, though used in the media, is not WTA accepted as this is not a media service to parrot what the media with all its biases and sensationalism say it is. Sure used in QUOTES and explicitly attributed to the media or whoever specific but that doesnt make it gospel truth or encylopaedic worth.Lihaas (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What word would you suggest if not the one used by almost every source discussing the topic? By that logic any article involving the word terrorist, or terrorism, should be avoided. It surely would help bring down the number of articles.--- Nomen NescioGnothi seautoncontributions14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone reverted me with a consensus argument. And was reverted again. Again, WP:CCC and WP:BRD. Most importantly, the guideline WP:LABEL suggests we shouldn't use the term "terrorist" at all. Of course, consensus can overcome a guideline, but it seems to me this will be an eternal WP:LABEL issue. However, there is no reason to allege "consensus", there really isn't a consensus when the revert of my revert is reverted by another user who might be yet reverted. The reality is, there is no consensus, there is, however a guideline that speaks strongly in favor of not using the term, and I see no reason here why we should suspend the guideline. Of course, I do suggest that instead of plain "undo" people revisit the argument as per WP:BRD. THere is chance, however slight, that someone can come up with a compelling argument as to why we should ignore this guideline in this case. --Cerejota (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cerejota, and BRD seems to require more discussion. I believe the way the content was presented we could be seen as teaching rather than letting the reader decide. It is one thing to attribute a source as saying a thing, while it is entirely another to simply state it as fact. That is why I reverted the edit on a one time basis. My76Strat (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you can not see it on this specific talk page and not see a consensus is because every previous discussion about this subject has been archived. The two biggest of those can be found on archive page 2 [2] and 3 [3]. Not everybody knows the interwiki-abbreviations, but I'm assuming you mean WP:WTA, which was discussed on talk page 3. And the direct quote from WP:WTA is "Value-laden labels [...] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject [...]" (my emphasis). There have been plenty of references supporting the use of the word, but in order to satisfy those that did not agree with the one reference various people have added, several additional references has been added throughout revision history, but then the reference list got so long that it made the lead very awkward to read, and thus others again had them removed, and then the word itself got removed again by someone else, and the discussion started anew. Here are just a few of the references previously used: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] etc. The perpetrator (ABB) can be a terrorist even though he is a wacko Christian and not a Muslim. His acts is exactly how terrorism is defined in the Norwegian criminal law, and a couple of lawyers interviewed on Norwegian television has even stated that this is not a case of guilty or not, but how long and what kind of sentence he will get, since ABB has already admitted doing the acts. Laniala (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obvious to me we should use the definition of terrorism from Norwegian criminal law. According to US law, terrorism is politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, defining this act as not being terrorism. Grstein (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the souce says it then it should be sourced and quoted as such to their opinion,. WP DOES NOT MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS to state it as gospel truth. and Sas per CCCC here to we have a discussion. Asit stnads the page states terrorism as gospel truth, that is SUBJECTIVE regardless of who agrees with wath.Lihaas (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Beside visiting firing ranges and countries with relaxed gun laws to sharpen his skill,"
Quality control needed. I believe that sources tell things differently. In regard to a different matter, was the protection setting of this page, changed by an administrator or by a non-administrator, [17]? The relevant user page, suggests that the person is a non-administrator [18]. In that case, is it standard procedure that non-administrators should be changing protection settings? 89.8.81.132 (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perpetrator has adopted new name; would it make sense to update non-quote references?
Fjotolf Hansen, the perpetrator of this horrific crime, has adopted a new name and is no longer known as Anders Breivik. Would it be appropriate to update this article to reflect this change in name? Asking instead of BOLDing owing to the risk this'd create an appearance of giving improper regard. Ellenor2000 (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article goes againt WP:COATRACK with all the mentions of completely unrelated attacks. More or less every sub-heading under "Aftermath" should be deleted and replaced by one sentance along the lines of "Several later far-right terrorists claimed to be inspired by Brevik, i.e. xxxxxx). Insted "Aftermath" should be about reactions, news laws passed, legal proceedings and Brevik's prison time.--Marginataen (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not head anything in five days. If I don't here anything before Sunday, I'll delete the majority of what is currently under the "Aftermath" section :) Marginataen (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the removal, at least of Christchurch. The others should be shortened but can be mentioned shortly. Copycat crimes are a relevant criminological concept and are relevant to the worldwide aftermath of this attack. I will add them back in a reduced manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In summary I added the Christchurch part back, kept the Czech one gone because that guy seemed largely just mentally ill, and readded the polish one in a reduced manner. That one seemed relevant because of the Polish fertilizer bomb connection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
