Talk:Baneheia murders

Untitled
"There has never been a record of two perpetrators where children have been murdered, neither in Europe nor the United States..." Um, Jamie Bulger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.58.26 (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Grown up perpetrators, not children. Someone has edit the article already to specify this. TrustAndTheRegret (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

Should be split into two pages: 'murders' and 'controversy'
I suggest that the 'controversy' section be split to a separate page as it is not about the murders but one of the convictions. Additionally, the 'controversy' section still reads as an argument for Kristiansen's innocence, and not as an encyclopedic article. There are also numerous citations that go to scans hosted on the campaign site of one of the convicts. I will try to find better sources and/or remove contentious claims that aren't supported by commonly available source. KantLoverOver (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral sources
Many of the references in this article go to a blog that campaigns Kristiansen's innocence, some go to Bjørn Olav Jahr's book which is an opinion piece on what it considers an erroneous conviction, and some go to opinionated blogs. I fear that the 'controversy' section needs to be seriously cleaned up before it can be considered neutral and encyclopedic. KantLoverOver (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need other sources than the blog and Jahr's book. But I think reference to those sources, at least the book (which is published by a serious publisher and written by a serious author and has never been criticized as being non-factual), can be used if we can't find other sources, and perhaps also we write in the text source what the source is (e.g. "according to ..."). Also, I don't think we should use smear pieces from opinionated journalists either. In your last edit, about the telecommunication, you removed both neutral sources, references to the blog, and reference to Jahr's book, and replaced it with a reference to Thomas Sommerset's long article about the Baneheia case. Sommerset has gotten criticized for not being neutral so we should not use him as a source unless there are other references. Another thing, this sentence is misleading because they were talking in scientific terms (i.e. in reality were probably more than 99% sure that it wasn't possible), and should therefore be removed: "Both reports concluded, however, that they could not completely dismiss that it was possible". Also, in my opinion, the language of that edit is of significantly lower quality than both the text that it replaced, and your previous edits on this page. A lot of important information is lost as well in that edit. I think almost everything in that section was covered by the neutral sources, perhaps everything. You could probably have just removed the non-neutral sources instead of removing all the text. I'll look at it later. TrustAndTheRegret (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * : Thanks for looking into it. I agree on most of your points and I don't mind if you change it back. I still think the controversies section merits their own page. I will check in again later. KantLoverOver (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)