Talk:Johan Galtung
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
