Talk:Johan Galtung/Archive 1

Archive 1

the UN-university in Geneva

Does the UN-university in Geneva mean (as is likely) the Graduate Institute of International Studies (HEI)? Septentrionalis 16:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No. The UN-university in Geneva is a internal institution of the UN reserved for UN Staff. Look here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genova (talk • contribs) 13:20, July 12, 2005

Category:Marxist theorists

Category:Marxist theorists? Why? Aarnepolkusin 09:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Placement of him a Marxist is incorrect - he is Marxist-inspired, but his theory of exploitation is explictly non-Marxist, as it is based upon gaps in levels of processing, and not on the surplus-value thesis." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.33.2 (talk) 12:18, April 25, 2006 (UTC)

Not unbiased

"seeking to end U.S. occupation of Hawaii" is hardly an un-biased remark. How about "seeking to end what they see as a foreign occupation by the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.176.226 (talk) 12:44, October 14, 2005 (UTC)

The fall of the US empire

This is supposed to be a reference to Galtung predicting the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, but the title (I think) reads "It's all over for the USA in 2020". The article then, is probably about Galtung predicting the fall of the USA's superpower status, and should be listed as a reference for this (where it now sez "citation needed".--Misha bb 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The last line is wrong. After he in "johan uten land" predicted the downfall of the US empire in 20 years he has not revised his statement. He agrees that they have fastend the pace towards downfall but will not revise his thesis just yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.38.142 (talk) 07:09, April 26, 2007 (UTC)

You are both wrong. Galtung's predictions about the downfall of the USA has been revised after the appearance of George W. Bush. Johan uten land was published in 2000, before Bush jr. came into office. Also, I went to a speech Galtung held yesterday at the University of Oslo where he repeated that he has shortened the deadline by five years. He did make a point, though, of the fact that this revision comes without an analytic rationale, i.e. it's based on an emotional-intuitive response. In fact, he invited everyone present to his 90th birthday in 2020 to celebrate also the abolishment of the United States empire, confidently expecting to be present still, because, as he said, he is in much greater vigor today than the USA is. __meco 07:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are Galtung's other predictions?

From City Journal: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_peace_racket.html

"Though Galtung has opined that the annihilation of Washington, D.C., would be a fair punishment for America’s arrogant view of itself as “a model for everyone else,” he’s long held up certain countries as worthy of emulation—among them Stalin’s USSR, whose economy, he predicted in 1953, would soon overtake the West’s. He’s also a fan of Castro’s Cuba, which he praised in 1972 for “break[ing] free of imperialism’s iron grip.” At least you can’t accuse Galtung of hiding his prejudices. In 1973, explaining world politics in a children’s newspaper, he described the U.S. and Western Europe as “rich, Western, Christian countries” that make war to secure materials and markets: “Such an economic system is called capitalism, and when it’s spread in this way to other countries it’s called imperialism.” In 1974, he sneered at the West’s fixation on “persecuted elite personages” such as Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. Thirty years later, he compared the U.S. to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo and invading Afghanistan and Iraq. For Galtung, a war that liberates is no better than one that enslaves.

His all-time favorite nation? China during the Cultural Revolution. Visiting his Xanadu, Galtung concluded that the Chinese loved life under Mao: after all, they were all “nice and smiling.” While “repressive in a certain liberal sense,” he wrote, Mao’s China was “endlessly liberating when seen from many other perspectives that liberal theory has never understood.” Why, China showed that “the whole theory about what an ‘open society’ is must be rewritten, probably also the theory of ‘democracy’—and it will take a long time before the West will be willing to view China as a master teacher in such subjects.”

Nor has Galtung changed his tune over the decades. Recently he gave a lecture that was a smorgasbord of wild accusations about America’s refusing to negotiate with Saddam, America’s secret plans to make war in Azerbaijan, Nazis in the State Department, the CIA’s responsibility for 6 million covert murders, and so on. Galtung called for a Truth and Reconciliation Committee in Iraq—to treat America’s crimes, not the Baathists’."

If Galtung has indeed made incorrect predictions, dubious accusations, and controversial statements that belie his peace-seeking image, then they should be verified and included in the article along with his much ballyhooed prediction concerning the fall of the Berlin Wall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.82.222 (talk) 09:19:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign. 24.113.82.222 22:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If CityJournal can be ascertained as a reliable source, then it seems like some of this material could be used to create a 'criticism' section. Ronnotel 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cityjournal is *not* a reliable source. Any claim such as "though Galtung has opined that the annihilation of Washington, D.C., would be a fair punishment for America’s arrogant view" is blatant Fox News rethoric that belongs in conservipedia not wikipedia. Enough of this freedom fries non-sense.Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This "article" is just a right-wing rant. It was written by a right-wing nut, it is not a credible source. The author claims that Galtung has said this and that... But where's the evidence? Is that enough to make it true? Why is this article referenced in wikipedia? Create a criticism section and put it there, but please do not use this as a source for Galtung's quotes. The man never said that a burned Washington D.C. would be a fitting punishment. That is just ridiculous.

POV rubbish

First of all I was disgusted to see some right wing neocon source such as city-journal being cited as a source. Section removed. Second, wikipedia is not a place for Fox News type of reporting as YOU 24.113.82.222 should know. Take that crap to conseripedia. Nastykermit 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing sourced text to push your own POV? Don't think it works that way. --Anthon.Eff 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is not valid. Yes, wikipedia works that way. Either you cite a genuine Galtung source or you dont source anything. ~His publications are on the TRANSCEND site Feel free to find ANYHTING that backs up your idiotic claim http://www.transcend.org/ Nastykermit 06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources? Usually avoided here because of the problem of original research. Here's a link to some relevant policy: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. The deleted text came from a reputable secondary source. You might not like it, but City Journal is widely read and widely respected. Johan Galtung is arguably a great man, but that doesn't mean that it is OK to delete any well-sourced text that is critical of him. --Anthon.Eff 13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not for deleting critical text. My jaw however dropped when I stumbled opun the article in its original form. As far as City Journal being respected that all depends. One look at the front page and you can clearly see where it lies in political questions. Its overly bisased towards republican evangelicals. Primary sources is no problem here considering he would have published what you speak of. If not published its just as credible as a rumors.Nastykermit 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

City Journal is very close to the National Review. It has a political agenda, but it is aimed at intelligent people and intelligent people read it. It's a credible source. My advice is that you get busy and write some text to balance the article if you think it unbalanced. But you can't revert these sourced edits just because they don't fit well with your own prejudices. --Anthon.Eff 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Political agenda is a POV don't you see? The stuff I removed is stuff I don't recognize in Galtung at all. It seams like yet another slander campaign created by neo cons aimed at anyone critical of the US. As Galtung himself said 'Down with the American Empire, long live the American republic'. If you can direct me to all that stuff through his publications, then it should be listed. If not, theres no evidence for it and should not be listed.Nastykermit 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three revert rule, but I won't report you because I think we can work this out. I didn't put the City Journal material in the article, and I'm a busy person, so it's very unreasonable to request that I find the primary sources for you. If you have problems with the material you can do one of two things: 1) You can check the sources given (that is, look in the City Journal, and even look at the primary sources given there), and see if they really support the statements that made your jaw drop; 2) you can add more material, about Galtung's major ideas, and about the activist work that he has done. What you cannot do is to simply delete sourced material that you dislike. --Anthon.Eff 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to report me. And no, that you are a busy person is not a valid reason to post stuff thats simply not true. I have reported this in the living person noticeboardNastykermit 05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

add : -Anthon.Eff. Stop posting slander. Bruce Bawer calls Galtung 'an enemy of freedom', the entire article is a disgusting soup of neo conservatism. I willl report you if you dont stopNastykermit 14:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your comments: "Neo-con"?, "evangelical"? Sounds like you never heard of Bruce Bawer. Actually, my only concern here is to keep some well-sourced material in the article. If this material was libelous, City Journal and the Los Angeles Time wouldn't have published it. If you find the article unbalanced, as I've told you already three times, then add some well-sourced positive material. And don't mistake me for an enemy of Johan Galtung: I don't object to him; I object to you and your POV-pushing.--Anthon.Eff 15:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

'well sourced positive material'? It's right there on the TRANSCEND site. Hes a professor and his field of study is 'peace'. Hes against totalitarism and dictatorship, the claim that hes against democracy and so on is ABSURD. The burden is on you to prove that Bawers claims are correct, not the other way around. I can easily create a source that says the moon is made out of cheese and post it in the article about the moon. Listen, I'm not a fan of Galtung but the stuff about Hungary etc seams completely fictional. It just doesnt make sense.

edit : I took a peak in the noticeboard and heres the reply

"One of the cites -- not sure if it is to the one you refer -- is to a publication by title only. At the very least the issue should be identified in order to track down the quote(s) if necessary. I'd say WP:BLP would require a full citation, not a broad reference by title alone. You might include pointers to the edits in question" Nastykermit 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I saw that. I had already gotten rid of that sentence. Everything in there now is from Bawer. --Anthon.Eff 19:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

and Bruce is a bigot. He even writes "and his views on World War II suggest that he’d have preferred it if the Allies had allowed Hitler to finish off the Jews and invade Britain". Sorry, we need a direct quote of that. Instead of using childish reasons to revert the edits perhaps you should do your homework and find a proper source for Bruce's claims. If not its vandalismNastykermit 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm an outside editor that has a history with Anthon.Eff (he likes to call me name, such as "communist", regarding another issue), so I'm not entirely impartial. But I have read the comments here and the article in question. In my opinion, the article is very strongly opinion based since the author, Bruce Bawer, cites a lot of quotes that Galtung supposedly made but doesn't say where the quotes have come from. I have done a quick Google search and have not found corroborating evidence (other than people citing Bruce Bawer.) Unless there is another source that shows that Galtung has in fact stated these claims, the text clearly violates WP:BLP and is defamatory and derogatory. Until someone takes the time to find corroborating evidence, it should be removed from the article immediately. If Anthon.Eff continues to replace the derogatory text in the article, he should be reported to WP:3RR. –panda 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Panda. I belive he has violated WP:BLP. He has also made offensive comments in the edit history section, hurling personal insults at me personally.Nastykermit 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"hurling personal insults at me personally"! Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Let's keep the discussion on the content, not on the editors. I believe we are still waiting for someone knowledgeable about WP:BLP to weigh in. --Anthon.Eff 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Let's keep the discussion on the content, not on the editors" Considering your history, do you see the irony of your own post?Nastykermit 21:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A few notes about sources:

Potentially controversial claims must be corroborated with sources on wp. These may be from secondary sources and they may well be from other publications than scholarly journals. In non-scholarly publications, exact references are usually not given; in fact, it’s common not to provide any sources at all (see, for instance, Time, Der Spiegel, or any leading magazine). The crucial thing in such cases, is that you refer to an established and trustworthy publication. Weather it has a political agenda is not pertinent to testing the truthfulness of factual claims (it is pertinent, on the other hand, if the subject under dispute involves value interpretations, judgements, intentions etc.) The presumption is, that somebody who publishes presumed “hard facts” without being sure about their really being hard facts, will soon be revealed as unreliable and loose credibility even among those who share his POV. There is plenty of controversy around, but a very small amount of it involves disputing factual claims. Normally, it’s only the most incompetent who get trapped with spreading rumours.--Jonund (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. You did a commendable job of supplying sources to this article two months ago. A commentator at WP:BLPN did say that one of the sources you supplied (Norrköpings Tidningar 1972–09–08) should also have at least an article title (i.e., publication name was not enough). But I think that source also has two other, less serious, problems: it's not available online, and it's not in English. So I removed the quote about China and Cuba having "democratic" characteristics. The remaining critical material was sourced on an article Bruce Bawer published in the City Journal and the Los Angeles Times – first rate sources by a notable journalist, in English, online.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On the "Criticism and Controversy" part (CaC): The Wikipedia rule is: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." The CaC is based on an article by Barbara Kay. But Kay does not give her own sources. So it is "poorly sourced", and "potentially libellous". I have a little knowledge of Galtung's points of view, and can say this: Of course he doesn't think the destruction of Washington D. C. can be "justified" by America's foreign policy. Explained, perhaps (and even right-wingers can "explain" it that way), but not "justified". And what he perhaps criticized regarding Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, wasn't that the West supported them, but probably that the West ignored so many other people who deserved support. So according to the Wikipedia rule, the CaC should be "removed immediately", and I have done this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringozstarr (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have misunderstood Wikipedia's guidelines with respect to verifiability, no original research and reliable sources. They apply to Wikipedia editors, not to the people we quote. __meco (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So if there is some POV rubbish about a person in some article, is there no way to keep that out of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringozstarr (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

amount of written books

No way did he write that much (following the note also disproves it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.90.154 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Still another problem

In the "predictions" section, there's this:

"Galtung has made predictions which have failed to materialize. For example, in 1953 he predicted that the Soviet Union's economy would soon overtake the West.[12]"

The "12" refers to a right-wing nut POV article.

Right next to it, in the "criticism" section, that prediction is labelled as an allegation... Which is it? Allegation or is it true? Why can't the 1953 "prediction", that is labeled as an allegation, be removed from the "predictions" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.205.207 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Bawer is not a "nut". You (and I) might disagree with his views, but he is an intelligent, eloquent writer, and his article is a legitimate source. The short statement that you have repeatedly deleted--that not all of Galtung's predictions have turned out to be true--is not particularly opprobrious, and is factually correct. It fits very well in the prediction section, and is needed there to give some balance, so that the reader doesn't get the idea that Galtung has the gift of precognition.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point... Just before the allegations section, there is:

"Galtung has made predictions which have failed to materialize. For example, in 1953 he predicted that the Soviet Union's economy would soon overtake the West."

and then, right next to it, there is:

"Criticism and Controversy

Conservatives have criticized many of Galtung's statements and views. In a 2007 article in the City Journal magazine and a subsequent article in February 2009 by Barbara Kay in the National Post, a number of criticisms were made of Galtung and Peace Studies. However, she did not source her quotations. SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS INCLUDED:

* His prediction in 1953 that the economy of the Soviet Union would soon overtake the West’s."

So... which is it? Allegation or fact?

And Bruce Bawer IS a right-wing nutjob, but that is not the point in this discussion. Barbara Kay IS ALSO a right-wing nutjob. A person that accuses quebequian authorities of supporting hezbollah (maybe because they speak french there), IS a right-wing nut job. Their articles are NOT facts, since they have failed to point out where the claimed Galtung predictions are. In which book? Which page? Which paragraph? So, far, only their articles are being used as reference for such "predictions". And that may be everything, but credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.182.38 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the prediction from the criticism section. So if the redundancy bothered you, it's gone. I understand your reservations about using journalists as sources when the journalists themselves do not use sources. But we use journalists as sources for the other two footnotes in the prediction section, and it's accepted practice in WP. I feel comfortable with the practice as long as the publication is reasonably respectable: all respectable publishers worry about libel suits, and will be careful to avoid saying something actionable. If you are unhappy about the way this article is treating Professor Galtung, your best remedy may be to post your concerns at the WP:BLPN, where editors familiar with these issues will take a look. And by the way, it wouldn't hurt to register before posting... --Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but simply claiming that a source is a "right-wing nutjob" doesn't count as a reason to doubt its accuracy, reliablity, and (most importantly) its acceptablity in Wikipedia. If you have evidence to the contrary (or better yet, a source which provides a response to these criticisms), feel free to insert it, but simply insulting the sources cited (because you seem to disagree with them) is not an acceptable practice in Wikipedia. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Ah yes. I didn't realize that this was already cited in another section of the article. It's current configuration is fine.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Edit War

I have noticed two editors on this article, User:Hyperionsteel and User:Acsrosa, changing the article back and forth in violation of WP:Edit War. Please can these editors (and others interested in the topic) please discuss this issue rather than changing and changing back, there is no need to do so and it will be disruptive to other editors. Thanks! -- Casmith_789 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well. User:Acsrosa initially did not provide any reason for the deletion of this material. When asked to provide one, Acsrosa claimed that Professor Galtung does not want this material here. First of all, how exactly does Acsrosa know what Mr. Galtung wants? More to the point, even if Acsrosa is in touch with him, Mr. Galtung doesn't have an automatic veto over what is on his Wikipedia page. If there are specific concern about this material (e.g. is it incorrect, incomplete, misrepresented, improperly sourced, copyright protected) then please provide it. I will be happy to amend or remove any material that is in violation of wiki policy. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

I see that User:Acsrosa has claimed that she is Mr. Galtung's assistant. Aside from the fact that this may be a conflict of interest violation, simply stating that Mr. Galtung wants this deleted is not sufficient. Mr. Galtung does not have a veto over what is placed on this page. If Acsrosa could provide a reason why Mr. Galtung wants this removed (e.g. is it copyright protected, inaccurate, improperly sourced), I'd be happy to listen to it. I won't revent this material for a few days while I await Acsrosa's response.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

@Hyperionsteel My effort at clarifying and improving the controversial aspects within the Galtung post was done in good faith. The fact that the sentences I posted have been undone with the simple claim that my contribution was an act of vandalism is mind boggling. The facts and onfos that I posted are directly from sources quoted and massively indicated in the reference section below. It is evident from the wanton deletion from the user responsible for the "vandalism" charge, that he has never even read a single of Galtungs epistemological papers. I advise to google search the following: "johan galtung filetype:pdf" and spend some time reading through the countless speeches of the man himself as well as the numerous documents by analysts before deleting verified facts. -->A man who has a degree in mathematics is -and not only in my opinion- a mathematician. Why erase that? Where is that an act of vandalism? -->If the book is about the decline and fall of the U.S EMPIRE, whereby EMPIRE is defined extensively in the book in question, it is inherently WRONG to write that Galtung claims the USA as an entity per se is the object of his analysis. Here's a quote... "Definition: An empire is a transborder Center-Periphery system, in macro-space and in macro-time, with a culture legitimizing a structure of unequal exchange between center and periphery: economically, between exploiters and exploited, as inequity; militarily, between killers and victims, as enforcement; politically, between dominators and dominated, as repression; culturally, between alienators and alienated, as conditioning. Empires have different profiles. The US Empire has a complete configuration, articulated in a statement by a Pentagon planner: "The de facto role of the United States Armed Forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing". In other words, direct violence to protect structural violence legitimized by cultural violence. The Center is continental USA and the Periphery much of the world. Like any system it has a life-cycle reminiscent of an organism, with conception, gestation, birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, senescence and death. Seeded by the British Empire, the maturing colonies honed their imperial skills on indigenous populations, ventured abroad in military interventions defining zones of interest, took over the Spanish Empire, expanding with world, even space hegemony as goal, now in the aging phase with overwhelming control tasks quickly overtaking the expansion tasks." from here: http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_USempireFall.html

I'm tired already... whats the point in arguing if it can all be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veredict (talk • contribs) 10:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I was concerned was that your additions clearly violated a number of Wiki policies, including POV langauge, Original research, excessive focus based on a single article, and improper format in citing references. I've reviewed your additions and attempted to correct some of these issues. The huge section you added that deals with the US Empire is purely original research. A paragraph referencing the articles you cited is sufficient.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Want GA status?

Here are some keywords for improvement:

• Too short lead section
• Can the image be cropped? The subject is barely seen
• Too many bulleted points
• Is the section structure logical?
• Inline external links without ref tags
• Quality of the sources used?
• Citation style
• Too many external links (preferable number of external links: 0)

Geschichte (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These are useful pointers. I had already done several of them without seeing the note here. Some of the problems are still present. I will continue working on the subject. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Johan Galtung and anti-semitism

So, a few days ago the Norwegian humanistic magazine "Humanist" published an article by Johan Galtung where he openly admitted that believe the Elder Scrolls of Sion is real and cited an article by William Pierce as a source on how jews rule america. The Norwegian text is here: [1], and the only english site that has yet to mention it is this blog: [2]

Anyone care to implement it in the article? --83.254.42.222 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you read the original language it was in (Norwegian?)? Can you vouch for the accuracy of the later reportage/blogging of it? (here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-control-media-peace-professor-galtung-claims-in-recent-article/). If so we could certainly add this to the page. It appears notable. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Galtung also states to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation that he doesn't know who William Pierce is, but have no doubt in believing that what the article states is true ([3]). He also recommends the books of the infamous Norwegian anti-semitic Erik Rudstrøm and to read the Elder Scrolls of Sion as there might a grain of truth to them (as discussed here by a Norwegian extreme-right researcher: [4]). I hope someone will take the time to translate Johan Galtung's original article into english soon. --83.254.42.222 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The linked article is a reply from Galtung to the criticism he recieved after a lecture held at the University of Oslo. I've read it (in Norwegian) and at no point does Galtung say he believes the Elder Scrolls of Zion to be true. "I have not "recommended" the Elder Scrolls of Zion, I've recommended reading them to understand what one is talking about" (sic). The last part is a bit ambigious, but it takes a good bit of ill will to construe it as him supporting the views represented in that document. His general point in this debate is how hard and controversial it is to go against the party line in the Western world with Isreal and the the risk of being labelled anti-semitic being able to stop (in his view) plausible reasoning around conflicts. I'd wait until the dust has settled at least.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.181.207 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC) edit: sorry; 84.208.181.207 (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the previous poster. Galtung writes the following in a key passage in the article: "Jeg lurer på hvor mange som har så sikre meninger om Sions Vises Protokoller som har lest dem? Det er umulig å gjøre det i dag uten å tenke på Goldman-Sachs." In English: "I wonder how many of those having so strong opinions about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion who have actually read them? It is impossible to do that today without thinking about Goldman-Sachs." Here Galtung is really restating the argument frequently employed by antisemites that even if the "Protocols" are a forgery (in the next sentence, however, he doubts that they are ("Det er vanskelig å tro at det hemmelige russiske politi var i stand til å skrive en slik analyse" -- "It is hard to believe that the secret Russian police was able to write such an analysis")), they still offer an apt description of present-day Jewish behavior. It is true that the "antisemitism" label is frequently--all too frequently--misused. It may be in danger of losing its currency when applied to all sorts of criticism of Israeli policies. However, if referring to this terrible document--this "Warrant for Genocide", as one of its foremost historians describes it--in the way that JG does cannot fairly be described as antisemitic or at the very least bordering on antisemitism, I do not know what can. Johannes Due 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

Here's a suggestion: can someone please draft a few summary sentences, a precis, of the relevant views Galtung expresses in this article? None of the remarks above are exactly directly saying something. If we could decide on language that was acceptable to those who find the statements extraordinary and those who don't, then we can put in the piece. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a go: In the article, Galtung expressed the view that questions about such issues as Jewish ownership of world media and the alleged Israeli origins of the 2011 Norway attacks should be debated. Affirming the need to debate these issues, Galtung referred to a blog post entitled «Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of World Media» and to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. On the significance of the latter, Galtung argued that "it is impossible to [read the document] today without thinking of Goldman-Sachs". 207.10.141.221 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. The last remark is kind of cryptic, though. I guess we can let readers decide what they think it means. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not cryptic at all, if one knows what the Protocol of the Elders of Zion is about: how the Jews plot to indebt the rest of the world in order to rule it from Jerusalem. Galtung sees Goldman Sachs as a jewish owned entity (as he says in the Haaretz article), and sees them as indebting the rest of the world, meaning they are, in his view, a manifestation for the storyline of the Protocol. soundthealarm (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Might be relevant to add that this article met with negative responses in all major Norwegian newspapers. For instance, the dailies Dagbladet, Dagens Næringsliv, Bergens Tidende, and Aftenposten ran editorials severely criticizing the statements about the Protocols and "Jewish power". I can provide detailed references if necessary.mstislav 22:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

Update: Here's an article from Ha'aretz which, in detail, outlines Galtung's statements on Jews/Israel. I'll try to get around to writing something based on this for this article:

• Pioneer of global peace studies hints at link between Norway massacre and Mossad by Ofer Aderet, Ha'aretz, April 30, 2012.</ref>

That article both misquotes and has an extremely strong PoV from the get-go. It's also very hard to consider an Isreali newspaper article a credible source for actual quotes in this case. 84.208.181.207 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. So your implication is that Israeli media publications can't be considered credible in this case simply because they are Israeli? Try providing evidence (ideally, another source) to support your claim that Galtung's words were mistranslated instead of making foolish statements like the one above.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC))

If a party can be construed as being on either side of a conflict or debate I'd be reluctant to consider it a credible source for factual information. When it comes to sources there's a long way from what Galtung writes to Galtungs statements paraphrased and juxtapositioned in an article written with a very strong PoV on the issue. I've followed the debate in Norwegian and for what it's worth I can vouch for the translated article linked further down. Being a reply to the criticizm he met it should have answers to most questions. 84.208.181.207 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Accusations" section is currently somewhat imprecise. E.g., Galtung isn't "said to have said that he cannot read Protocols of the Elders of Zion without making a connection to the investment bank Goldman Sachs"; he positively wrote in his article that "it is impossible to do that [read the Protocols] today without thinking of Goldman Sachs". And he didn't write that he didn't think the Prots are a forgery, he wrote that he doubted the Czarist secret police authored them. This last point, however, is not really central here and I propose to remove it.due 05:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

Update: here is an English translation of Galtung's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs) 06:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be an WP:EW occurring. I'm reinstating half the material on this topic, removing the second para, which is a summary that would benefit from editing. I recognize that WP:BLP is in force here. Ledelste (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this story is spreading. I've found a few other sources that deal with this topic:

• ‘Father of peace studies’ makes public anti-Semitic remarks, Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), April 30, 2012.
• Norwegian media slams anti-Semitic professor by Aviel Magnezi, Ynetnews, May 2, 2012.
• Norwegian Scholar Connects Breivik's Attack to Mossad by Elad Benari, Israel National News, May 1, 2012.
• This is interesting; It seems that Iran's state run media has picked up the story:
  • Israeli-backed Jewish lobbies control world media: Sociologist, Press TV (Iran), May 1, 2012.

Hope these articles are useful.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC))

The editor Tertoger is repeatedly deleting the referenced section on Galtung's remarks about Jews/media/Protocols of Zion, without providing any justification other than referring to BLP. It would be helpful to have other users' opinions on whether this section is defamatory. As I see it, the accusations should clearly be referred as JG's statements were extremely controversial and have, as shown above, resonated many places in the world. Another comment from American political scientist Walter Russell Mead, btw, can be found here: Europe’s Jew Hatred Isn’t Just On The Fringe, Walter Russell Mead's Blog (The American Interest), April 30, 2012. due 17:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP violations in saying what Galtung said and mentioning the response it received. A search shows that Commentary, a noted US conservative publication, has entered the fray too: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/johan-galtung/ - and if there were any question about the notability of this, it's even featured on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087889/-Pioneer-of-Global-Peace-Studies-Turns-Out-To-Be-Anti-Semitic-Bigot . This shows notability. As long as we are carefully quoting and showing the response, I do not know what BLP violation would be afoot. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We do not make an entire section in Barack Obama's biography titled "accusations of anti-semitism" merely because "a noted [er, no] US conservative publication" says he is anti-semitic. An attack section that violates the policy on biographies of living persons, and that also grossly violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, must be removed instantly. Apart from that, the section was completely unencyclopedic and worthless POV cruft. The identical section was removed by an administrator from the Norwegian Wikipedia article as a violation of the BLP policy, also leading to the protection of the article. Tertoger (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree re the separate section point. As for the Norwegian editors -- perhaps they got it wrong and should follow our lead, rather than vice-versa. Whether this is a "BLP violation" is a matter of consensus. My own view is that if the sources are multiple and reliable then it deserves some coverage here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not suggest having a section for it. I suggested that the information be included, and cited several publications that have circulated the remarks as a demonstration of their notability. What specifically is the BLP violation for why this should be excluded from the article entirely? If we're not talking about total exclusion, we can deliberate on what two or three choice sentences should be used to summarize this stuff. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's my two cents for a referenced description of the latest JG controversy, maybe it can be used as a point of departure for reaching a consensus on how to describe this: Galtung was widely criticized by Norwegian media and academics for lending his authority to anti-Semitic ideas following public remarks in 2011 and 2012 about alleged Israeli responsibility for the 2011 Norway attacks and the merits of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (refs: http://humanist.no/galtung4.html ; http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentarer/Gar-seg-vill-i-konspirasjonsteorier-6816685.html ; http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10050109) Expanding on his views in a Haaretz interview, Galtung stated regarding Auschwitz that "[it was] not unproblematic that Jews had key niches in a society humiliated by defeat at Versailles", since this "created anti-Semitism that could have been predicted",(ref: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/pioneer-of-global-peace-studies-hints-at-link-between-norway-massacre-and-mossad-1.427385) drawing international criticism. (refs: USA: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/01/peace-studies-founder-and-anti-semitisc-ideas/ ; Austria: http://derstandard.at/1334796806005/Antisemitismus-von-links-Galtungs-Verirrungen ; Denmark: http://www.b.dk/globalt/norsk-fredsprofessor-chokerer-med-joedehad) Galtung dismissed accusations of anti-Semitism as "nonsense" (ref: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10050109). due 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Your proposed text has very little to do with what Galtung said, and we don't give undue weight to material like this. Galtung has been extremely famous and often surrounded by controversy for 60 years. A couple of articles in the media do not merit any lengthy discussion in his biography here. Tertoger (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

1. It's not a lengthy discussion we're talking about, but two or three sentences. 2. Galtung having been "famous" for a long time does not detract from the notability of Galtung's recent remarks, in my opinion. Other editors' opinions would be appreciated here. 3. If you think Galtung said something radically different from my above summary or from the summaries of the various sources citing him, you should explain this in a proper fashion. due 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

My opinions: JG published an article and many media outlets have reported upon the article and the reaction to it. It's certainly noteworthy. User Tertoger claims that WP:BLP is the reason he has repeatedly deleted the section, but I don't see why; it is neutral, verifiable, and without original research. Further, he cited "vandalism" in his edit summaries, numerous times, but I see none. I'm not the original author of the section but I've tried to help things by cutting out the second half of it, which was a summary that might have been original research. But it got deleted. I don't understand what Tertoger's criteria are. All that editor has said is "no, it's BLP", but nothing constructive. I find that disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledelste (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I inserted the paragraph I proposed above into the article. In my mind this is a fair and accurate description of these notable events. In the case that user Tertoger (or any other) disagrees, I urge him/her to make a constructive proposal on these talk pages of how to change it to make it comply better with wp regulations rather than just deleting it. --due 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

The Norwegian Wikipedia article includes one sentence describing this minor incident in a career as a public person spanning more than half a century. The title "accusations of anti-semitism" was deemed to be a BLP violation there and is a BLP violation here as well. Also see WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS. We do not make a separate section in Jonas Gahr Støre's biography titled "accusations of anti-semitism" merely because some Israeli person says so, or in Barack Obama's article. Tertoger (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's true that there is a parallel discussion on the Norwegian wp on this article regarding how best to describe this controversy, but this matter is not settled there either. Maybe you are not aware of this, Tertoger, but JG Støre or B. Obama did not state that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion should be read and that "one cannot do so without thinking of Goldman-Sachs". If they did, I think their WP articles would have to reflect that as well. Please provide a constructive alternative instead of deleting referenced material, esp. since consensus on this section so far seems to be against you --due 22:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

I find Tertoger's (talk) statement "merely because some Israeli person says so" incredibly offensive. It would be equally as offensive for somebody to accuse someone of lying just because they are Norwegian. Clivel 0 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Clivel 0 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC) : I recently added two paragraphs under the heading : Accusations of anti-Semitism. The first paragraph is factual, includes references and does not attempt to draw any conclusions as to whether Galtung is or is not anti-Semitic:

Further controversy erupted in 2011 and 2012 in the pages of the Journal of the Norwegian Humanist Association where Galtung is accused of repeatedly making anti-Semitic remarks. Initially at a lecture by Galtung at the University of Oslo in 2011 and subsequently in a follow up article written by Galtung and also published in the Journal of the Norwegian Humanist Association. Haaretz published an article Pioneer of global peace studies hints at link between Norway massacre and Mossad April 30th, 2012 levelling further accusations at Galtung including quotes from an email exchange between Galtung and the paper.

Yet despite not providing any justification for removing it Tertoger (talk) persists in deleting the text after it has been reverted by myself or other editors.

The second paragraph was not reverted by Ledelste (talk) following a Tertoger deletion. As it could potentially have been construed to be judgemental I can see that there is some justification for not reinstating the text as is:

Amongst the statements causing the accusations directed at Galtung are his claim of a possible link between Mossad and Anders Behring Breivik and the possibility that Breivik may have been acting on orders from Mossad when committing the Norway massacre. Galtung is also accused of promoting the notorious anti-Semitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well as for justifying “terrible Auschwitz” on the basis that it should have been predicted in a society where Jews occupied so many key niches. Galtung is also purported to have claimed that the Jews control the American media. Galtung is also said to have said that he cannot read Protocols of the Elders of Zion without making a connection to the investment bank Goldman Sachs and that he challenges that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery.

It is important for Wikipedia to attempt to provide as comprehensive and as accurate an account as possible of each topic, and as unpleasant as the subject may be, accusations of anti-Semitism whether justified or not have been made towards Galtung. That accusations have been made is part and parcel of his life and thus should be documented.

Preceding text moved from the "Criticism and Controversy" section of this page to here. Clivel 0 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Two observations: (1) A lot of editors who had not only ignored this article, but also ignored WP, have suddenly shown up. And they are experienced. What's up? (2) In my opinion, Tertoger seems to be on the right track (someone please unblock him). Galtung has a long history of saying very stupid things. For example, when he lectures, he can't stop himself from making "predictions" based on little more than left-wing wishful thinking. In this interview he said some stupid things. But, God Almighty, does anyone here really believe that an ultra-liberal academic like Johan Galtung is an authentic anti-Semite? People like Galtung might feel anger at Israel, but it boggles belief that they would be anti-Semitic.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what editors have shown up, or why. Who are you to question their experience. Editors show up for a variety of reasons, and Galtung's outlandish statements have offended enough people for them to care enough to ensure that these are accurately documented. Speaking for myself, and I really have no obligation to justify myself to you, I have actually made a number of edits over the past few years. Although until now I had never registered by name. Clivel 0 (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I can't believe that JG really hates Jews qua Jews. I am bewildered by the fact that he has now gone public with remarks like "it's impossible to read the Protocols of the Elders of Z. without thinking of Goldman-Sachs", and that he talks about "Jewish world power" with reference to a pamphlet by William Pierce. Something has beclouded JG's good judgment here, perhaps it is old age. Whatever their cause, and whatever editors may personally think about the cause, I think the statements themselves and the controversy they generated are clearly notable, coming from such an (in some circles) academic authority, and deserving of some mention. --due 15:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

I guess I agree, something has to be included. But Galtung is pretty far on the left, and I interpret the PoEoZ statement as an expression of his hatred of capitalism (and hence Goldman-Sachs), not Jews--he is merely attempting to insinuate that the PoEoZ describes the agenda of large corporations. But did he really quote favorably William Pierce? That seems inconsistent with Galtung's background--he is from the generation in Norway that really hates Nazis. Is anger against Israel reaching a tipping point in Europe? Last month Günter Grass blew up, and now Galtung. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthon, you asked why so many experienced editors have shown up. Simple -- there's a thread at WP:BLPN. As for content; I agree about the ambiguity of the Goldman-Sachs comment, and I'm going to remove it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Goldman-Sachs comment goes to the heart of the controversy and if anything is a clear indication of his intention to malign Jews. Whether it is consistent or not with Galtung's background is immaterial; he did actually say it. Wikipedia deals in facts. The PoEoZ is a well known anti-Semitic hoax purported to document the Jewish plan for world domination. If Galtung's intent was to only express hatred of capitalism he could of chosen a million other companies to use as an example. But no, he chose to link a blatantly anti-Semitic document with a blatantly Jewish company, that is anti-Semitic. And if that in-itself is not enough, hist statement that Jews control the American media only adds fuel to the fire. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the Goldman-Sachs reference therefore it should be reinstated Clivel 0 (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the source for the sentence in our article is Galtung himself. When that source is used to support a statement that Galtung said something anti-Semitic, it is very much a matter of WP:OR -- it is a particular editor here asserting that what Galtung said is anti-Semitic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Clivel. Moreover, many if not most commentators singled out this sentence about Goldman Sachs when claiming that JG was lending his authority to anti-Semitic ideas. E.g., http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentarer/Gar-seg-vill-i-konspirasjonsteorier-6816685.html (Norwegian), http://www.ejpress.org/article/57721. So one could cite a commentator instead of citing the original, then it wouldn't be WP:OR? (Another interesting fact, btw, is that David Duke's site commended the statements for "pointing out Jewish extremism" (http://www.davidduke.com/?p=33730).) due 16:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs)

Just noticed this post. Your question shows you do understand WP:OR -- yes, if we cite a commentator and say that that person considered Galtung's comment to be anti-Semitic, that would not be WP:OR. Wikipedia editors may not write articles in a way that amounts to making that sort of judgment themselves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation

The relevant section discussing the BLP violation at the Norwegian Wikipedia is http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskusjon:Johan_Galtung#Avsnitt_som_strider_mot_BLP Tertoger (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We might not hear from Tertoger again for a while -- blocked indefinitely. However anyone who restores what he has deleted is advised to do so in a way that avoids WP:OR, as noted two sections up. With material like this we must be absolutely rigorous in adhering to sourcing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the text back finding no problems in regards to WP:BLP. I've removed one of the sources which was an opinion piece and as such not a reliable source, and I also have modified the presentation of Galtung's position vis-à-vis the Mossad–22 July attacks connection hypothesis which I believe were not appropriately presented in the original text. __meco (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that Meco's edit (6 May 14:54) offers a balanced view of Galtung's alleged anti-Semitism. I am hoping that this topic is now finally laid to rest. Clivel 0 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat something I said two sections up: we can't use a reference to something Galtung himself wrote to support the notion that what he wrote is anti-Semitic. When that source is used to support a statement, or an implication (as at present), that Galtung said something anti-Semitic, it is very much a matter of WP:OR -- it is a particular editor here asserting that what Galtung said is anti-Semitic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Although in my opinion, that what Galtung said is anti-Semitic, I never offered that opinion in the body of the article. Nevertheless, as there is no disagreement that Galtung actually said what he said regarding PoEoZ and Goldman Sachs, I think the fact that he said it is relevant. It should be left up to the reader to decide on Galtung's motives. Clivel 0 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Putting it into a section titled "Accusations of anti-Semitism" is a very clear implication that someone thinks the statement is anti-Semitic. If we are to do this, we must have a reliable source asserting this; Galtung himself is not an acceptable source here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I missed the headline. I agree. His critics are careful not to label him an anti-Semite. They say he verges on anti-Semitism, to paraphrase. We should change to headline either to reflect this or perhaps better, to avoid having to balance it altogether. __meco (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And unless we can quote notable people accusing him of anti-Semitism, we shouldn't quote Galtung's rebuttal of such accusations either. That would be insinuating a sharper confrontation than that which actually exists, whether it was intended or not. __meco (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Professor of modern history at University of Bergen and researcher at the Holocaust Center in Oslo, Christhard Hoffmann, is probably the foremost expert on the history of anti-Semitism in Norway. (Ref: http://www.hlsenteret.no/om/medarbeidere/forskning/christhard-hoffmann/ -- note the publication list -- also, try Google Scholar-searching his name.) Hoffmann was asked by journalists to comment on Galtung's statements. Here is what Hoffmann said about JG: "- Han antyder at noe av det som står der kan belyse dagens situasjon, og det er sterk kost. Vanligvis er jeg tilbakeholden med å si at folk sprer antisemittiske påstander, men her er det ingen tvil." ("- He suggests that parts of it [the PotEoZ] may shed light on the present situation, and that is quite extraordinary. Usually I am reserved about saying that someone spreads anti-Semitic statements, but in this case there is no doubt.") http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10050109 So here we have an expert historian of anti-Semitism accusing JG of spreading anti-Semitic statements (but not of *being* an anti-Semite, however). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes due (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC) --due 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the distinction is an important one. If I'm selling Mein Kampf I would be spreading nazi propaganda, but that would not make a basis for calling me a nazi. __meco (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, now that there is no longer a section under the heading of "Accusations of anti-Semitism", your objections to the Goldman-Sachs reference are no longer valid. I am not going to revert it, but unless you have further concerns I would appreciate it if you would. Clivel 0 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Meco arent you banned from the Norwegian Wikipedia due to this very topic? Caden ^cool 15:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it a mere coincidence that I just responded on Tertoger's user page to your intercession on Tertoger's behalf in the matter of said user's indefinite ban, and that I now come here only to read you regurgitate, albeit somewhat inaccurately, Tertoger's non-sequiturial accusation against me made on said talk page? I don't even want to comment on your question. You can go investigate and return here if you dig up something you think will be of interest to the users editing Talk:Johan Galtung. __meco (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A simple yes or no will do. Are you banned from the Norwegian Wikipedia due to this very topic? Yes or no? Caden ^cool 18:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would it matter? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Think about it. Caden ^cool 19:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Um -- okay. But then I might come to a conclusion different from yours. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether Meco is, or is not banned on the Norwegian Wikipedia is not relevant. While not banned here then Meco is as entitled as anyone else to contribute. If anything Caden, I consider that your question borders on attempted character assassination. As an aside, it is an embarrassment that the editors at the Norwegian Wikipedia have chosen to whitewash Galtung's actions. That sort of narrow minded expunging of all things unsavoury does a huge disservice to the credibility of Wikipedia. Clivel 0 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maths

Galtung's contributions to mathematics are not specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.134.88 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Um, are they relevant. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy section

A user recently deleted this entire section on the grounds that the information presented is taken out of context. I have seen reinstated it. It's true this section does not reflect very highly on Galtung, but it is properly sourced from mainstream media outlets and there has been no evidence presented that any of this information is inaccurate, libelous, or has been taken out of context. Criticism sections in BLPs are very common throughout Wikipedia. This section contains no synthesis or orginal research and accurately reflects the sources from which it is cited. If you want to add new material, feel free too; but you can't remove this entire section simply because it displays Galtung in a less than positive light (the claim that this information have been taken out of context has no basis other than the claims of the user). Please discuss further before making such a drastic change.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC))

What I actually said when removing the material was: "these very negative one-line snippets are totally out of context and constitute an attack on Galtung, which is against WP:BLP; any criticism should be presented in context and integrated into the article". I would add that Wikipedia:Criticism states that we should avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies". It’s clear that the section as it stands is against WP policy and not encyclopedic, so am removing it again. Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out, you have provided no evidence that this information is taken "totally out of context." The information is properly sourced and no evidence has been provided that suggests any of it is inaccurate, libelous, or misleading. Your unsupported claim that this material is "totally out of context" (and that therefore, it constitutes an attack on Galtung) is not sufficient justification to remove this material. These "negaitve one-line snippets" are not simply opinions or accusations but are specific facts that have not been challenged - nor does this section contain synthesis or Original research. You can't remove this entire section simply because it may reflect negatively on Galtung.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

A few more points: this section does not dominate the article (in fact, it constitute only a small portion of the article). Also, this section does not contain criticisms of Galtung (there are no opinions expressed in this section at all), but rather statements made by Galtung that have been the subject of controversy, as these sources have indicated. If you want to add material that suggests these statements have been taken out of context, then by all means do so.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

One more point: other BLP articles in Wikipedia, such as George Galloway, Ward Churchill and Gilad Atzmon have sections dealing with criticisms and controversies which constitute a much larger portion of the article than here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

I think that criticism has to be handled in a fair and balanced manner. This "Criticism" section doesn't seem to pass muster. In fact, "Criticism" sections are deprecated in WP. The way this section is written leaves much to be desired. The bullet points simply pick out some of his alleged views, but do not say anything about them. I am not in favour of keeping the section in its present form. Sunray (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you point me to the policy where "criticism sections are deprecated". Just would like to know more (especially the discussion leading up to this policy). Thanks!!--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the dot points, as these were a major problem, and have added a tag requesting that the Criticism section be integrated into the article as a whole. Johnfos (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Sunray (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I will still argue that removing properly sourced material simply because it may cast Galtung in less than positive light is unacceptable. You have claimed that these points have been taken out of context but you have failed to provide any evidence to support this (i.e. in what context should they be taken?). In the meantime, I will try to integrate the material in this section into other sections of this article (Galtung's statements on the United States can certainly be moved to another section). Also, this section hardly violated NPOV - there are no insults, polemics, opinions, or even actual criticism. Rather, it consists of statements that Galtung has made during his career that have drawn criticism from certain sources.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

If there were obvious other ways to include this criticism, we ought to think of it. But his remarks on China and Mao, and the criticism they received, seems relevant for people interested in his ideas and how they have been received. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is highly unreliable as a source of *unbiased* information if only positive things about Galtung are allowed to be included. What is this? Pravda!??! It is ridiculous not to include those things just because they dont cast in him in the best of lights. If they are well-sourced there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how it makes you feel. Facts are facts. Stop turning Wikipedia into a propaganda machine for *your* agenda, that is not the purpose and it will make wikipedia cease to be an unbiased and reliable encyclopedia of information. 130.238.65.54 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(Note there is actually criticism in this article; and also, Wikipedia policy does not recommend having a "criticism section" as such.) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the material contained in the criticism section has been published in two separate articles, both of which meet the requirements for RS, there is no reason not to include them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC))

Antisemitism again

I suspect that this will be a controversial edit [5] because of the great detail it provides about this controversy. It is questionable whether the matter deserves the weight it is here being given. "Weight" includes the amount of quotes, the detailed discussions of back-and-forth arguments, etc. etc. Does anyone else see a problem with the weight given to this information due to the above edit? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not object the weight given to this discussion. We should keep it and continue to work on finding the best balance that opposing factions can live with, if need be. __meco (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed most of the section since it was copyrighted text from Haaretz, but I've summarized his controversial claims. Including quotations is fine, but undue weight is an issue. Also, if quotations are included, his responses to the allegations must be added as well. InverseHypercube (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)