Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

POV section (and name change of 2025)

"fantasy name" is not mentioned in source, aftenposten.no/norge/i/73M14v/22-juli-terroristen-har-faatt-godkjent-nytt-navn-i-folkeregisteret
.--Other points: "Far Skaldigrimmr" is the given name, and the other two names is the last name.--A named professor of Norwegian language, at a named Norwegian university, says that the name gives clear associations to Old Norse language, but is not easy to "get"/attempt-to-comprehend. Furthermore, "one can say that the name appears to be reasonably home-made". Furthermore, it appears unclear if "Far" refers to voyage or to the modern Norwegian meaning, father. Furthermore, "«Skaldigrimmr» can be confused with Skallagrimr", a famous man from Iceland who got his name because of his bald head. Furthermore, «skaldi» means a poet without a lot of talent, while Grimr is an Old norse (given) name of a male. Furthermore, "The closest we can get to «Rauskjoldr», would be something like «Rauðskjǫldr» in Old Norse, 'red shield'. Furthermore, the professor is unsure what «'red shield' of Nordrike», is supposed to mean. Furthermore, the red shield could refer to, amongst other things, strength, martyrdom, or will-to-sacrifice.--The professor did not speculate about "Nordrike" (and if "Northern realm", is likely to be what it is supposed to mean).--The source also says that court verdicts, have been using the name "Breivik", while (briefly) mentioning whatever official name he has. 2001:2020:351:B8C2:187B:C4C9:BFC3:3460 (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This article needs protection.

This article is extremely sensitive; protection is recommended ~2026-37237-1 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

We do not protect preemptively, see WP:Requests for page protection. HKLionel TALK 11:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Should we semi-protect the article?

As infamous as Breivik is, and also as big of a cult as he has on the internet, I think it's the right decision to at least semi-protect the article since it's quite literally about an anti-immigration Islamophobic domestic terrorist. At best, maybe like the article Ted Kaczynski, which is still semi-protected due to vandalism. UltraCobson (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:LEADIMAGE

Sketch of Breivik

Since this pic is dated 2016, WP:AIIMGBLP probably doesn't apply, but I have a knee-jerk reaction on using WP:USERG art for BLP:s. Can we just use a non-free photo similar to Lucy Letby instead? "No free equivalent is or can be available. The individual is currently imprisoned serving a whole-life sentence, effectively making it impossible to create a free image at any point in the future." Go without is my second choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I think using a non-free image would be a much better alternative here. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. // Kakan spelar (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The question is if a rationale like "The individual is currently imprisoned until at least 2033 and potentially indefinitely longer..." (see the article lead) would survive a "not good enough for non-free" challenge. @Marchjuly, care to have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (see item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI) does make allowances for non-free images when it comes to still living persons as long as there's no reasonable expectation that a free, equivalent image capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one can either be created or found. This allowance is typically considered applicable when it comes to long-term incarcerated persons after they've be through the trial, sentencing, and appeal stages because of the likeliness of a new free equivalent being created for quite some time. So, unless an already existing free equivalent image of the same person being found or relicensed in way that's free enough for Wikipedia's purposes, an argument in favor of non-free use could be made. However, such use shouldn't be considered automatic, and it might still require discussion to establish it does meet all ten WP:NFCCP.

In this case, the current infobox image could be hard to argue against for copyright reasons, but an argument might be made for WP:IMAGEOR reasons or even for reasons similar to WP:AIIMAGE. Unless the drawing itself was something created by an established sketch artist or court reporter which was used by reliable sources in their coverage of Behring and his crimes, it could be argue that the drawing is sort of a promotional image created by some "unknown" person, which means it's encyclopedic value to Wikipedia is questionable. It might be best to start a discussion about this at WP:FFD, providing a link to whichever non-free image is being considered as a replacement to the one currently being used. Don't upload the file just yet, but wait to see how the FFD turns out. If the consensus end up being that the current image shouldn't be used regardless, then makes using a non-free one a possibility. If the consensus is that a non-free one would be OK to use, then a non-free one could then be uploaded and used instead. The other approach would be to be WP:BOLD and just go ahead an upload a non-free one. However, if that image ends up being challenged, things are going to most likely end up at FFD eventually; so, it seems better to just go there first.

Finally, whether the current image should continue to be used is not really copyright related (unless you want to nominate the file for deletion over on Commons for being a copyvio). If the local consensus is that it shouldn't be used for encyclopedic reasons, someone can just boldly remove it and leave the article without any image at all. If someone disagrees, then try to resolve things here on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, the matter can be moved to FFD. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy only matters if someone wants to replace the current image with a non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Mentioned in the manifesto: A voice-over actress for an animated film

Mentioned in the manifesto: A voice-over actress for an animated film. (At least the voice is mentioned.)
(Note: There is an ongoing slow-season for news in Norway.)

(Maybe some information might fit into a spin-off article about the manifest.)

Date of source: 21 July 2026. Source, Nettavisen.no/kjendis/helene-boksle-romte-landet-etter-22-juli-sjokket/s/5-95-3158955

The voice-over-actress (and singer), has an article on En-wiki. However, I am not convinced that she should be mentioned in "Anders Breivik". ~2026-40166-38 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Another source (from 22 July 2026), in the not-so-likely event that more information is needed, about the above. Link, nrk.no/norge/15-ar-siden-22.-juli_-slik-markeres-dagen-1.17965516

Relevant info in that article, seems to be centered around section, "Han nevnte henne også flere ganger i sitt manifest" ('he mentioned her, several times in the manifest'). ~2026-40166-38 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)