Talk:Johan Galtung

Two "articles" in the ref list

There are two "articles" in the reference list that are not credible sources. These are:

The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, Summer 2007. and Barbarians within the gate by Barbara Kay, National Post, February 18, 2009.

Someone is using right-wing nut rant, as a credible source for Galtung's quotes. Create a criticism section and put them there, clearly stating that those artivles are just Barbara Kay's and Bruce Bawer's opinion article and that what they claim are not facts. So far, there is no credible reference, like a Galtung article, that clearly shows that the man has those views. They are just right-wing nut point of views, nothing else. Unfortunately, the person that reads the wikipedia article may take it for truth. Please, correct it.

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..

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)

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)