1121:
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:
256:"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 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.
1363:
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.
1118:@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. --: -->
591:, 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.--
648:
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 Knowledge rule, the CaC should be "removed immediately", and I have done this.
2973:
presented that any of this information is inaccurate, libelous, or has been taken out of context. Criticism sections in BLPs are very common throughout
Knowledge. 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.(
430:, 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
477:'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.
2371:
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
1331:
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..
31:
3137:
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.(
2668:"- 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 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.")
2249:
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.--
467:. 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.--
3013:
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.(
1100:, 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.(
968:
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
2056:
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)
483:"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"
2293:
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)
1073:
Galtung doesn't have an automatic veto over what is on his Knowledge 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. (
405:. 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. --
517:(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
260:
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.”
3136:
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
3071:
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
2601:
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
2582:
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
2292:
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
1931:
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
1544:
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
798:
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
582:
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
327:
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
2227:
It is important for Knowledge 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
1455:
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
1396:
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
1330:
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
1072:
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.
994:
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 Knowledge. If you have evidence to the contrary (or better yet, a source which provides a response to these criticisms), feel free
617:
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
503:
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
390:
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
259:
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
232:
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.
3180:
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
3012:
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
2813:
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
2329:
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.
2263:
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
1902:
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
1797:
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
1566:
wrote in his article that "it is impossible to do that 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
1471:
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
2055:
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
1362:
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
1154:
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.
647:
On the "Criticism and Controversy" part (CaC): The Knowledge 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
415:
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
263:
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
2248:
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
1959:
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
1880:. 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.
1525:
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
933:
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
194:
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
3236:
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
3028:
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
967:
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
1782:
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
2894:
Whether Meco is, or is not banned on the Norwegian Knowledge 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
2972:
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
1707:
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
1120:
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
233:
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. __
2370:
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. Knowledge deals in facts. The PoEoZ is a well known
887:
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
304:
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
2214:
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
2749:
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.
2000:
The Norwegian Knowledge 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
267:
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.
1819:
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
3181:
nothing you can do about it, no matter how it makes you feel. Facts are facts. Stop turning Knowledge 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.
2616:
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.
337:
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.
521:
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
2631:
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.
1932:
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.
2646:
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.
1708:
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:
770:
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?
934:
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.
205:
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
1753:'s biography titled "accusations of anti-semitism" merely because "a noted 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
2158:
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
3152:
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.
1545:
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.
358:
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
1371:, 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)
1562:"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
147:"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."
2997:
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.
2661:
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:
2387:
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
553:"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
2814:
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. __
3274:, 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.
2536:, 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. __
1238:
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
2895:
editors at the Norwegian Knowledge 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 Knowledge.
1715:
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:
1287:
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 (
2406:
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.,
1508:
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.
453:
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 stop
2666:-- 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:
2334:? 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
2110:) 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.
3210:
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.(
1497:
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:
799:
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
328:
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.
2194:) 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:
3029:
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.(
2989:
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
3252:
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. __
1852:
that " 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:
1219:
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.
444:
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 noticeboard
380:
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. --
3327:
3090:
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!!--
2168:
1853:
1501:
1412:
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
1927:
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
2264:
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.
2510:
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
3108:
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.
543:
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.
171:"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."
2558:
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.
764:"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."
840:"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."
1898:
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
1635:
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
83:
391:
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.
1720:
526:
and is defamatory and derogatory. Until someone takes the time to find corroborating evidence, it should be removed from the article immediately. If
2673:
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).
1155:
The huge section you added that deals with the US Empire is purely original research. A paragraph referencing the articles you cited is sufficient.(
416:
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.
2150:
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:
1119:
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? --: -->
294:
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.
1659:
178:
1546:
1509:
1425:
1348:
1338:
995:
to insert it, but simply insulting the sources cited (because you seem to disagree with them) is not an acceptable practice in Knowledge. (
778:
1294:
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:
3196:(Note there is actually criticism in this article; and also, Knowledge policy does not recommend having a "criticism section" as such.)
3182:
2944:
1723:. This shows notability. As long as we are carefully quoting and showing the response, I do not know what BLP violation would be afoot.
1298:
1251:
941:
275:
213:
1854:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/pioneer-of-global-peace-studies-hints-at-link-between-norway-massacre-and-mossad-1.427385
1266:
1265:
Do you read the original language it was in (Norwegian?)? Can you vouch for the accuracy of the later reportage/blogging of it? (here:
1246:
2689:
2438:
2309:
2072:
1976:
1919:
1617:
1583:
1488:
1387:
742:
154:
1798:
not talking about total exclusion, we can deliberate on what two or three choice sentences should be used to summarize this stuff.
1709:
1053:
this issue rather than changing and changing back, there is no need to do so and it will be disruptive to other editors. Thanks! --
719:
664:
264:
murders, and so on. Galtung called for a Truth and Reconciliation Committee in Iraq—to treat America’s crimes, not the Baathists’."
2407:
1837:
228:
You are both wrong. Galtung's predictions about the downfall of the USA has been revised after the appearance of George W. Bush.
2171:
April 30th, 2012 levelling further accusations at Galtung including quotes from an email exchange between Galtung and the paper.
2220:
2216:
2211:
1829:
1421:
567:"Let's keep the discussion on the content, not on the editors" Considering your history, do you see the irony of your own post?
1857:
972:, where editors familiar with these issues will take a look. And by the way, it wouldn't hurt to register before posting... --
2450:-- yes, if we cite a commentator and say that that person considered Galtung's comment to be anti-Semitic, that would not be
2160:
2155:
1948:
1143:
1097:
373:
1598:
1014:
Ah yes. I didn't realize that this was already cited in another section of the article. It's current configuration is fine.(
609:
I agree with what you say. You did a commendable job of supplying sources to this article two months ago. A commentator at
2418:? (Another interesting fact, btw, is that David Duke's site commended the statements for "pointing out Jewish extremism" (
1899:
372:
Primary sources? Usually avoided here because of the problem of original research. Here's a link to some relevant policy:
3056:
have sections dealing with criticisms and controversies which constitute a much larger portion of the article than here.(
1424:. On the significance of the latter, Galtung argued that "it is impossible to today without thinking of Goldman-Sachs".
3242:
3201:
3158:
2958:
1803:
1728:
1443:
1402:
1316:
1274:
1224:
120:
1861:
1721:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087889/-Pioneer-of-Global-Peace-Studies-Turns-Out-To-Be-Anti-Semitic-Bigot
1368:
3285:
2881:
2850:
2622:
2592:
2519:
2459:
2397:
2361:
1788:
134:
38:
1761:, must be removed instantly. Apart from that, the section was completely unencyclopedic and worthless POV cruft.
182:
703:
So if there is some POV rubbish about a person in some article, is there no way to keep that out of Knowledge?
2454:. Knowledge editors may not write articles in a way that amounts to making that sort of judgment themselves.
1438:
Great. The last remark is kind of cryptic, though. I guess we can let readers decide what they think it means.
2514:, as noted two sections up. With material like this we must be absolutely rigorous in adhering to sourcing.
1550:
1513:
1429:
1417:
1352:
1342:
1122:
782:
2948:
1302:
1255:
945:
3238:
3215:
3197:
3186:
3154:
3142:
3061:
3034:
3018:
2978:
2954:
2198:
Amongst the statements causing the accusations directed at Galtung are his claim of a possible link between
1799:
1724:
1694:
1531:
1439:
1398:
1312:
1270:
1220:
1160:
1105:
1078:
1019:
1000:
746:
623:
377:
279:
217:
2828:
A simple yes or no will do. Are you banned from the Norwegian Knowledge due to this very topic? Yes or no?
3328:
Pioneer of global peace studies hints at link between Norway massacre and Mossad. Haaretz April 30th, 2012
3317:
Om klare linjer og tvisyn (Clear lines and ambivalence) By Johan Galtung in Humanist Online April 23, 2012
2685:
2663:
2434:
2356:. As for content; I agree about the ambiguity of the Goldman-Sachs comment, and I'm going to remove it.
2305:
2203:
2068:
1972:
1915:
1613:
1579:
1484:
1383:
1197:
158:
3275:
2877:
2846:
2618:
2588:
2515:
2455:
2393:
2357:
1784:
1297:). I hope someone will take the time to translate Johan Galtung's original article into english soon. --
1058:
715:
660:
320:
310:
288:
285:
2681:
2430:
2301:
2064:
1968:
1911:
1609:
1575:
1480:
1416:
should be debated. Affirming the need to debate these issues, Galtung referred to a blog post entitled
1379:
3306:
Galtung leker med ilden (Galtung playing with fire) By John Faerseth in Humanist Online April 23, 2012
711:
656:
116:
3095:
2940:
2677:
2426:
2343:
2297:
2254:
2060:
1964:
1936:
1907:
1865:
1605:
1571:
1476:
1375:
1334:
1210:
1131:
977:
937:
808:
774:
738:
707:
652:
635:
493:
Yep. I saw that. I had already gotten rid of that sentence. Everything in there now is from Bawer. --
316:
271:
209:
174:
150:
108:
1457:
2994:
2993:; any criticism should be presented in context and integrated into the article". I would add that
2014:
2010:
1825:
1461:
1413:
1291:
1267:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-control-media-peace-professor-galtung-claims-in-recent-article/
1135:
1712:, Walter Russell Mead's Blog (The American Interest), April 30, 2012. due 17:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1093:
1069:
1042:
3211:
3138:
3057:
3030:
3014:
2974:
2900:
2755:
2670:
2607:
2563:
2500:
2376:
2269:
2236:
2219:
without making a connection to the investment bank Goldman Sachs and that he challenges that the
2191:
2180:
2139:
2115:
2107:
2026:
1944:
1885:
1869:
1841:
1773:
1690:
1644:
1527:
1156:
1139:
1101:
1074:
1046:
1038:
1015:
996:
138:
112:
47:
17:
2493:
2352:
Anthon, you asked why so many experienced editors have shown up. Simple -- there's a thread at
2206:
and the possibility that Breivik may have been acting on orders from Mossad when committing the
1719:- and if there were any question about the notability of this, it's even featured on Daily Kos:
1654:
It looks like this story is spreading. I've found a few other sources that deal with this topic:
3072:
do not say anything about them. I am not in favour of keeping the section in its present form.
2705:
I would be spreading nazi propaganda, but that would not make a basis for calling me a nazi. __
2408:
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentarer/Gar-seg-vill-i-konspirasjonsteorier-6816685.html
1838:
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentarer/Gar-seg-vill-i-konspirasjonsteorier-6816685.html
3113:
3003:
2335:
2006:
1877:
1758:
905:* His prediction in 1953 that the economy of the Soviet Union would soon overtake the West’s."
627:
1824:
ideas following public remarks in 2011 and 2012 about alleged Israeli responsibility for the
3127:
3077:
1665:
1054:
596:
568:
544:
505:
484:
454:
445:
417:
392:
363:
339:
306:
1858:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/01/peace-studies-founder-and-anti-semitisc-ideas/
1763:
The identical section was removed by an administrator from the Norwegian Knowledge article
3091:
3045:
2869:
2838:
2806:
2339:
2250:
2207:
2002:
1754:
1671:
1206:
973:
804:
631:
558:
527:
514:
494:
468:
435:
406:
402:
381:
349:
251:
87:
1716:
1456:
world, meaning they are, in his view, a manifestation for the storyline of the Protocol.
2231:
Preceding text moved from the "Criticism and Controversy" section of this page to here.
1960:
better with wp regulations rather than just deleting it. --due 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
1295:
1096:
has claimed that she is Mr. Galtung's assistant. Aside from the fact that this may be a
3257:
3049:
2819:
2710:
2652:
2637:
2541:
2353:
2331:
2183:) persists in deleting the text after it has been reverted by myself or other editors.
1239:
969:
693:
610:
2414:. So one could cite a commentator instead of citing the original, then it wouldn't be
376:. The deleted text came from a reputable secondary source. You might not like it, but
100:-university in Geneva is a internal institution of the UN reserved for UN Staff. Look
2990:
2896:
2751:
2603:
2587:-- it is a particular editor here asserting that what Galtung said is anti-Semitic.
2559:
2529:
2496:
2392:-- it is a particular editor here asserting that what Galtung said is anti-Semitic.
2372:
2265:
2232:
2187:
2176:
2135:
2111:
2103:
2022:
1940:
1928:
1881:
1769:
1640:
1636:
681:
554:
531:
523:
427:
295:
196:
463:
Looking at your comments: "Neo-con"?, "evangelical"? Sounds like you never heard of
3290:
3261:
3246:
3219:
3205:
3190:
3162:
3146:
3131:
3117:
3109:
3099:
3081:
3065:
3053:
3038:
3022:
3007:
2999:
2982:
2962:
2904:
2885:
2871:
2854:
2840:
2823:
2808:
2759:
2714:
2693:
2656:
2641:
2626:
2611:
2596:
2584:
2567:
2545:
2533:
2523:
2511:
2504:
2463:
2451:
2447:
2415:
2401:
2389:
2380:
2365:
2347:
2273:
2258:
2240:
2143:
2119:
2030:
2018:
1952:
1889:
1821:
1807:
1792:
1777:
1750:
1732:
1698:
1677:
This is interesting; It seems that Iran's state run media has picked up the story:
1648:
1632:
1621:
1554:
1535:
1517:
1465:
1447:
1433:
1406:
1356:
1320:
1306:
1278:
1259:
1228:
1214:
1164:
1147:
1109:
1082:
1062:
1023:
1004:
981:
949:
812:
800:
786:
750:
723:
697:
685:
668:
639:
600:
571:
561:
547:
538:
508:
497:
487:
471:
457:
448:
438:
420:
409:
395:
384:
366:
352:
342:
298:
237:
199:
141:
90:
530:
continues to replace the derogatory text in the article, he should be reported to
1862:
http://derstandard.at/1334796806005/Antisemitismus-von-links-Galtungs-Verirrungen
3123:
3073:
2492:
The relevant section discussing the BLP violation at the Norwegian Knowledge is
2169:
Pioneer of global peace studies hints at link between Norway massacre and Mossad
2154:
Further controversy erupted in 2011 and 2012 in the pages of the Journal of the
1502:
Pioneer of global peace studies hints at link between Norway massacre and Mossad
795:
677:
619:
592:
464:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2532:. I've removed one of the sources which was an opinion piece and as such not a
2860:
2829:
2797:
535:
348:
Removing sourced text to push your own POV? Don't think it works that way. --
3253:
2815:
2706:
2648:
2633:
2537:
1849:
1680:
1288:
1127:
I'm tired already... whats the point in arguing if it can all be verified?
689:
676:
Unfortunately you have misunderstood Knowledge's guidelines with respect to
234:
2796:
Meco arent you banned from the Norwegian Knowledge due to this very topic?
2494:
http://no.wikipedia.org/Diskusjon:Johan_Galtung#Avsnitt_som_strider_mot_BLP
1123:
http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Galtung_USempireFall.html
374:
Knowledge:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources
2876:
Um -- okay. But then I might come to a conclusion different from yours.
2210:. Galtung is also accused of promoting the notorious anti-Semitic forgery
825:
You're missing the point... Just before the allegations section, there is:
504:
homework and find a proper source for Bruce's claims. If not its vandalism
2664:
http://www.hlsenteret.no/om/medarbeidere/forskning/christhard-hoffmann/
2411:
2164:
1845:
1290:). He also recommends the books of the infamous Norwegian anti-semitic
1049:. Please can these editors (and others interested in the topic) please
1472:
detailed references if necessary.mstislav 22:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1269:). If so we could certainly add this to the page. It appears notable.
1243:
735:
No way did he write that much (following the note also disproves it)
2199:
1868:) Galtung dismissed accusations of anti-Semitism as "nonsense" (ref:
1245:, and the only english site that has yet to mention it is this blog:
3270:
I've removed most of the section since it was copyrighted text from
2419:
3305:
1833:
630:– first rate sources by a notable journalist, in English, online.--
3316:
2013:'s biography titled "accusations of anti-semitism" merely because
1866:
http://www.b.dk/globalt/norsk-fredsprofessor-chokerer-med-joedehad
1242:
as a source on how jews rule america. The Norwegian text is here:
688:. They apply to Knowledge editors, not to the people we quote. __
1202:
Too many external links (preferable number of external links: 0)
2446:
Just noticed this post. Your question shows you do understand
2671:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10050109
1870:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10050109
1842:
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10050109
1681:
Israeli-backed Jewish lobbies control world media: Sociologist
25:
360:
2701:
Indeed, the distinction is an important one. If I'm selling
2175:
Yet despite not providing any justification for removing it
480:
edit : I took a peak in the noticeboard and heres the reply
434:
do is to simply delete sourced material that you dislike. --
2937:
Galtung's contributions to mathematics are not specified.
2528:
I've added the text back finding no problems in regards to
1660:‘Father of peace studies’ makes public anti-Semitic remarks
97:
77:
3044:
One more point: other BLP articles in Knowledge, such as
3234:
252:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_peace_racket.html
2146:: I recently added two paragraphs under the heading :
1717:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/topic/johan-galtung/
1504:
by Ofer Aderet, Ha'aretz, April 30, 2012.</ref: -->
1045:, changing the article back and forth in violation of
618:
remaining critical material was sourced on an article
101:
2288:
Personally I can't believe that JG really hates Jews
1672:
Norwegian Scholar Connects Breivik's Attack to Mossad
1182:
Can the image be cropped? The subject is barely seen
1599:
here is an English translation of Galtung's article
1397:and those who don't, then we can put in the piece.
1674:by Elad Benari, Israel National News, May 1, 2012.
3237:given to this information due to the above edit?
3233:I suspect that this will be a controversial edit
2602:up to the reader to decide on Galtung's motives.
1768:, also leading to the protection of the article.
767:The "12" refers to a right-wing nut POV article.
1662:, Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), April 30, 2012.
1856:) drawing international criticism. (refs: USA:
1367:, if referring to this terrible document--this
1250:Anyone care to implement it in the article? --
613:did say that one of the sources you supplied (
513:I'm an outside editor that has a history with
1418:«Six Jewish Companies Own 96% of World Media»
8:
2228:of his life and thus should be documented.
1710:Europe’s Jew Hatred Isn’t Just On The Fringe
1666:Norwegian media slams anti-Semitic professor
1037:I have noticed two editors on this article,
761:In the "predictions" section, there's this:
195:this (where it now sez "citation needed".--
84:Graduate Institute of International Studies
888:quotations. SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS INCLUDED:
2186:The second paragraph was not reverted by
1668:by Aviel Magnezi, Ynetnews, May 2, 2012.
1175:Here are some keywords for improvement:
3298:
2009:. We do not make a separate section in
1567:remove it.due 05:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
1191:Inline external links without ref tags
920:So... which is it? Allegation or fact?
246:Where are Galtung's other predictions?
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
855:and then, right next to it, there is:
7:
2412:http://www.ejpress.org/article/57721
1878:Knowledge is not a tabloid newspaper
1848:interview, Galtung stated regarding
2330:But did he really quote favorably
401:City Journal is very close to the
245:
24:
2968:Criticism and Controversy section
2422:).) due 16:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2420:http://www.davidduke.com/?p=33730
1188:Is the section structure logical?
282:) 09:19:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
1872:). due 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1834:http://humanist.no/galtung4.html
1765:as a violation of the BLP policy
1689:Hope these articles are useful.(
29:
2221:Protocols of the Elders of Zion
2217:Protocols of the Elders of Zion
2212:Protocols of the Elders of Zion
1830:Protocols of the Elders of Zion
1683:, Press TV (Iran), May 1, 2012.
1422:Protocols of the Elders of Zion
1234:Johan Galtung and anti-semitism
185:) 12:44, October 14, 2005 (UTC)
2698:--due 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2161:Norwegian Humanist Association
2156:Norwegian Humanist Association
1844:) Expanding on his views in a
1098:conflict of interest violation
1:
3291:03:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
2338:blew up, and now Galtung. --
2148:Accusations of anti-Semitism.
1165:03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
1148:10:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
640:00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
601:21:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
220:) 07:09, April 26, 2007 (UTC)
200:12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
161:) 12:18, April 25, 2006 (UTC)
1345:) 18:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
1215:13:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
1194:Quality of the sources used?
1110:21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1083:21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1063:18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
751:16:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
572:21:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
562:19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
548:18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
539:19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
509:18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
498:19:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
488:18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
472:15:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
458:14:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
449:05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
439:19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
421:17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
410:17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
396:14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
385:13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
367:06:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
353:21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
343:20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
1024:04:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
1005:23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
982:12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
950:09:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
813:15:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
299:17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
289:22:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
142:09:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
70:the UN-university in Geneva
3346:
3262:10:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
3163:21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3147:21:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3132:17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3118:11:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3082:05:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3066:00:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3039:00:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3023:00:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
3008:22:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
2983:22:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
2951:) 15:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
1749:make an entire section in
1448:21:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1434:18:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1407:16:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1357:18:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
1321:18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
1307:12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
1279:02:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
1260:23:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
1229:01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
870:"Criticism and Controversy
787:07:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
577:A few notes about sources:
321:06:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
284:Sorry, I forgot to sign.
238:07:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
135:Category:Marxist theorists
130:Category:Marxist theorists
3247:20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
361:http://www.transcend.org/
190:The fall of the US empire
91:16:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
3220:06:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
3206:13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
3122:That makes sense to me.
3100:01:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
2963:13:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
1185:Too many bulleted points
583:all (see, for instance,
82:mean (as is likely) the
3191:18:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
2953:Um, are they relevant.
2905:06:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
2886:19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
2872:19:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
2855:18:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
2841:18:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
2824:17:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
2809:15:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
2760:06:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
2715:20:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2694:18:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2657:16:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2642:16:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2627:16:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2612:16:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2597:16:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2568:16:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2546:14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2524:08:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2505:08:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2464:06:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
2402:08:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2381:07:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2366:06:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2348:06:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2274:07:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
2259:05:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
2241:16:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
2144:23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2120:04:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
2031:21:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
1953:06:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
1890:20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1808:19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1793:19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1778:19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1733:17:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
1699:23:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
1649:20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
1622:06:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
1555:18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
1536:22:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
1518:19:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
1466:10:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
731:amount of written books
724:21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
698:21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
669:20:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
3198:The Sound and the Fury
3155:The Sound and the Fury
2955:The Sound and the Fury
2845:Why would it matter?
2204:Anders Behring Breivik
1828:and the merits of the
1800:The Sound and the Fury
1725:The Sound and the Fury
1440:The Sound and the Fury
1399:The Sound and the Fury
1369:"Warrant for Genocide"
1313:The Sound and the Fury
1271:The Sound and the Fury
1221:The Sound and the Fury
1179:Too short lead section
426:You have violated the
123:) 13:20, July 12, 2005
2167:published an article
1631:There seems to be an
757:Still another problem
615:Norrköpings Tidningar
319:comment was added at
274:comment was added by
80:-university in Geneva
42:of past discussions.
682:no original research
2995:Knowledge:Criticism
2015:some Israeli person
1826:2011 Norway attacks
1414:2011 Norway attacks
250:From City Journal:
3239:TheSoundAndTheFury
3229:Antisemitism again
1639:is in force here.
1039:User:Hyperionsteel
18:Talk:Johan Galtung
3289:
2943:comment added by
2697:
2680:comment added by
2583:much a matter of
2443:
2429:comment added by
2314:
2300:comment added by
2077:
2063:comment added by
1981:
1967:comment added by
1956:
1939:comment added by
1924:
1910:comment added by
1625:
1608:comment added by
1588:
1574:comment added by
1493:
1479:comment added by
1392:
1378:comment added by
1337:comment added by
1151:
1134:comment added by
940:comment added by
777:comment added by
753:
741:comment added by
727:
710:comment added by
672:
655:comment added by
628:Los Angeles Times
622:published in the
428:three revert rule
323:
283:
212:comment added by
177:comment added by
153:comment added by
125:
111:comment added by
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3337:
3330:
3325:
3319:
3314:
3308:
3303:
3283:
3281:
3278:
2952:
2878:Nomoskedasticity
2866:
2859:Think about it.
2847:Nomoskedasticity
2835:
2803:
2696:
2674:
2619:Nomoskedasticity
2589:Nomoskedasticity
2516:Nomoskedasticity
2456:Nomoskedasticity
2442:
2423:
2394:Nomoskedasticity
2358:Nomoskedasticity
2313:
2294:
2076:
2057:
2011:Jonas Gahr Støre
1980:
1961:
1955:
1933:
1923:
1904:
1785:Nomoskedasticity
1783:coverage here.
1624:
1602:
1587:
1568:
1492:
1473:
1391:
1372:
1346:
1150:
1128:
952:
789:
736:
726:
704:
686:reliable sources
671:
649:
314:
269:
221:
186:
162:
124:
105:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3345:
3344:
3340:
3339:
3338:
3336:
3335:
3334:
3333:
3326:
3322:
3315:
3311:
3304:
3300:
3279:
3276:
3231:
3046:George Galloway
2970:
2938:
2935:
2862:
2831:
2799:
2675:
2534:reliable source
2490:
2424:
2295:
2208:Norway massacre
2058:
2017:says so, or in
1962:
1934:
1905:
1603:
1569:
1474:
1373:
1332:
1236:
1173:
1171:Want GA status?
1129:
1035:
935:
772:
759:
733:
705:
650:
557:to weigh in. --
403:National Review
335:
270:—The preceding
248:
230:Johan uten land
207:
192:
179:195.176.176.226
172:
169:
148:
132:
106:
88:Septentrionalis
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3343:
3341:
3332:
3331:
3320:
3309:
3297:
3296:
3295:
3294:
3293:
3265:
3264:
3230:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3175:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3168:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3050:Ward Churchill
3042:
3026:
2969:
2966:
2934:
2931:
2930:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2644:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2489:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2332:William Pierce
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2225:
2224:
2223:is a forgery.
2173:
2172:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1893:
1892:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1675:
1669:
1663:
1656:
1655:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1547:84.208.181.207
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1510:84.208.181.207
1506:
1505:
1495:
1494:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1426:207.10.141.221
1394:
1393:
1349:84.208.181.207
1339:84.208.181.207
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1282:
1281:
1240:William Pierce
1235:
1232:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1198:Citation style
1195:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1172:
1169:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1087:
1086:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1009:
1008:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
818:
817:
816:
815:
779:81.193.205.207
758:
755:
732:
729:
701:
700:
645:
644:
643:
642:
604:
603:
579:
578:
565:
564:
501:
500:
475:
474:
442:
441:
413:
412:
388:
387:
356:
355:
334:
331:
330:
329:
302:
301:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
223:
222:
191:
188:
168:
165:
164:
163:
131:
128:
127:
126:
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3342:
3329:
3324:
3321:
3318:
3313:
3310:
3307:
3302:
3299:
3292:
3287:
3282:
3273:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3266:
3263:
3259:
3255:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3248:
3244:
3240:
3235:
3228:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3212:Hyperionsteel
3209:
3208:
3207:
3203:
3199:
3195:
3194:
3193:
3192:
3188:
3184:
3183:130.238.65.54
3164:
3160:
3156:
3151:
3150:
3148:
3144:
3140:
3139:Hyperionsteel
3135:
3134:
3133:
3129:
3125:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3115:
3111:
3107:
3101:
3097:
3093:
3089:
3088:
3087:
3086:
3085:
3084:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3070:
3069:
3067:
3063:
3059:
3058:Hyperionsteel
3055:
3051:
3047:
3043:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3031:Hyperionsteel
3027:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3015:Hyperionsteel
3011:
3010:
3009:
3005:
3001:
2996:
2992:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2984:
2980:
2976:
2975:Hyperionsteel
2967:
2965:
2964:
2960:
2956:
2950:
2946:
2945:94.193.134.88
2942:
2932:
2906:
2902:
2898:
2893:
2887:
2883:
2879:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2870:
2868:
2867:
2865:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2843:
2842:
2839:
2837:
2836:
2834:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2821:
2817:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2807:
2805:
2804:
2802:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2781:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2716:
2712:
2708:
2704:
2700:
2699:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2679:
2672:
2669:
2665:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2645:
2643:
2639:
2635:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2609:
2605:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2594:
2590:
2586:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2495:
2488:BLP violation
2487:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2421:
2417:
2413:
2410:(Norwegian),
2409:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2291:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2229:
2222:
2218:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2193:
2189:
2184:
2182:
2178:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2004:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1958:
1957:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1901:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1766:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1713:
1711:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1691:Hyperionsteel
1682:
1679:
1678:
1676:
1673:
1670:
1667:
1664:
1661:
1658:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1565:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:Hyperionsteel
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1503:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1458:soundthealarm
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1370:
1366:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1347:edit: sorry;
1344:
1340:
1336:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1299:83.254.42.222
1296:
1293:
1292:Erik Rudstrøm
1289:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1252:83.254.42.222
1248:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1233:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1201:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1170:
1168:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1157:Hyperionsteel
1152:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1125:
1124:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1102:Hyperionsteel
1099:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:Hyperionsteel
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1032:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:Hyperionsteel
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:Hyperionsteel
993:
992:
983:
979:
975:
971:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
951:
947:
943:
942:85.244.182.38
939:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
814:
810:
806:
802:
797:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
788:
784:
780:
776:
768:
765:
762:
756:
754:
752:
748:
744:
740:
730:
728:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
678:verifiability
675:
674:
673:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
616:
612:
608:
607:
606:
605:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
581:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
570:
563:
560:
556:
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
520:
516:
511:
510:
507:
499:
496:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
481:
478:
473:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
459:
456:
451:
450:
447:
440:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
411:
408:
404:
400:
399:
398:
397:
394:
386:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
365:
362:
354:
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
332:
326:
325:
324:
322:
318:
312:
308:
300:
297:
293:
292:
291:
290:
287:
286:24.113.82.222
281:
277:
276:24.113.82.222
273:
265:
261:
257:
254:
253:
239:
236:
231:
227:
226:
225:
224:
219:
215:
214:193.71.38.142
211:
204:
203:
202:
201:
198:
189:
187:
184:
180:
176:
166:
160:
156:
152:
146:
145:
144:
143:
140:
139:Aarnepolkusin
136:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
103:
99:
95:
94:
93:
92:
89:
85:
81:
79:
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3323:
3312:
3301:
3271:
3232:
3179:
3054:Gilad Atzmon
2971:
2939:— Preceding
2936:
2863:
2861:
2832:
2830:
2800:
2798:
2702:
2682:Johannes due
2676:— Preceding
2667:
2491:
2431:Johannes due
2425:— Preceding
2336:Günter Grass
2302:Johannes due
2296:— Preceding
2289:
2230:
2226:
2185:
2174:
2147:
2134:
2065:Johannes due
2059:— Preceding
2021:'s article.
2019:Barack Obama
1969:Johannes due
1963:— Preceding
1935:— Preceding
1912:Johannes due
1906:— Preceding
1822:anti-Semitic
1818:
1764:
1762:
1751:Barack Obama
1746:
1688:
1630:
1610:Johannes due
1604:— Preceding
1576:Johannes due
1570:— Preceding
1563:
1543:
1507:
1496:
1481:Johannes due
1475:— Preceding
1454:
1395:
1380:Johannes due
1374:— Preceding
1364:
1333:— Preceding
1329:
1249:
1237:
1218:
1205:
1174:
1153:
1126:
1117:
1094:User:Acsrosa
1070:User:Acsrosa
1050:
1043:User:Acsrosa
1036:
801:precognition
769:
766:
763:
760:
743:84.84.90.154
734:
702:
646:
624:City Journal
614:
588:
584:
566:
542:
518:
512:
502:
482:
479:
476:
452:
443:
431:
414:
389:
378:City Journal
357:
336:
303:
266:
262:
258:
255:
249:
229:
208:— Preceding
193:
173:— Preceding
170:
167:Not unbiased
155:130.225.33.2
149:— Preceding
133:
75:
73:
60:
43:
37:
1864:; Denmark:
1860:; Austria:
1420:and to the
1130:—Preceding
1092:I see that
1068:Very well.
1055:Casmith_789
1047:WP:Edit War
936:—Preceding
796:Bruce Bawer
773:—Preceding
737:—Preceding
712:Ringozstarr
706:—Preceding
657:Ringozstarr
651:—Preceding
620:Bruce Bawer
589:Der Spiegel
569:Nastykermit
545:Nastykermit
506:Nastykermit
485:Nastykermit
465:Bruce Bawer
455:Nastykermit
446:Nastykermit
418:Nastykermit
393:Nastykermit
364:Nastykermit
340:Nastykermit
333:POV rubbish
315:—Preceding
307:Nastykermit
107:—Preceding
36:This is an
3092:Anthon.Eff
2703:Mein Kampf
2340:Anthon.Eff
2251:Anthon.Eff
2007:WP:NOTNEWS
1900:notability
1759:WP:NOTNEWS
1564:positively
1207:Geschichte
974:Anthon.Eff
805:Anthon.Eff
632:Anthon.Eff
559:Anthon.Eff
528:Anthon.Eff
515:Anthon.Eff
495:Anthon.Eff
469:Anthon.Eff
436:Anthon.Eff
407:Anthon.Eff
382:Anthon.Eff
350:Anthon.Eff
305:non-sense.
3280:Hypercube
1850:Auschwitz
1832:. (refs:
1311:Bizarre.
61:Archive 1
2941:unsigned
2897:Clivel 0
2752:Clivel 0
2690:contribs
2678:unsigned
2604:Clivel 0
2560:Clivel 0
2497:Tertoger
2439:contribs
2427:unsigned
2373:Clivel 0
2310:contribs
2298:unsigned
2266:Clivel 0
2233:Clivel 0
2188:Ledelste
2177:Tertoger
2136:Clivel 0
2112:Clivel 0
2104:Tertoger
2073:contribs
2061:unsigned
2023:Tertoger
2003:WP:UNDUE
1977:contribs
1965:unsigned
1949:contribs
1941:Ledelste
1937:unsigned
1920:contribs
1908:unsigned
1882:Tertoger
1770:Tertoger
1755:WP:UNDUE
1641:Ledelste
1618:contribs
1606:unsigned
1597:Update:
1584:contribs
1572:unsigned
1489:contribs
1477:unsigned
1388:contribs
1376:unsigned
1335:unsigned
1144:contribs
1136:Veredict
1132:unsigned
1033:Edit War
938:unsigned
775:unsigned
739:unsigned
720:contribs
708:unsigned
665:contribs
653:unsigned
626:and the
296:Ronnotel
272:unsigned
210:unsigned
197:Misha bb
175:unsigned
151:unsigned
121:contribs
109:unsigned
96:No. The
3277:Inverse
3272:Haaretz
3110:Johnfos
3000:Johnfos
2354:WP:BLPN
2165:Haaretz
2102:I find
1903:(UTC)
1846:Haaretz
1526:above.(
1365:However
1051:discuss
970:WP:BLPN
611:WP:BLPN
317:undated
137:? Why?
86:(HEI)?
39:archive
3124:Sunray
3074:Sunray
2991:WP:BLP
2530:WP:BLP
2200:Mossad
1929:WP:BLP
1745:We do
1637:WP:BLP
593:Jonund
555:WP:BLP
536:–panda
532:WP:3RR
524:WP:BLP
432:cannot
113:Genova
2933:Maths
2864:Caden
2833:Caden
2801:Caden
2585:WP:OR
2512:WP:OR
2452:WP:OR
2448:WP:OR
2416:WP:OR
2390:WP:OR
1633:WP:EW
519:where
74:Does
16:<
3286:talk
3258:talk
3254:meco
3243:talk
3216:talk
3202:talk
3187:talk
3159:talk
3143:talk
3128:talk
3114:talk
3096:talk
3078:talk
3062:talk
3052:and
3035:talk
3019:talk
3004:talk
2979:talk
2959:talk
2949:talk
2901:talk
2882:talk
2851:talk
2820:talk
2816:meco
2756:talk
2711:talk
2707:meco
2686:talk
2653:talk
2649:meco
2638:talk
2634:meco
2623:talk
2608:talk
2593:talk
2564:talk
2542:talk
2538:meco
2520:talk
2501:talk
2460:talk
2435:talk
2398:talk
2377:talk
2362:talk
2344:talk
2306:talk
2270:talk
2255:talk
2237:talk
2202:and
2192:talk
2181:talk
2140:talk
2116:talk
2108:talk
2106:'s (
2069:talk
2027:talk
1973:talk
1945:talk
1916:talk
1886:talk
1876:No,
1804:talk
1789:talk
1774:talk
1757:and
1729:talk
1695:talk
1645:talk
1614:talk
1580:talk
1551:talk
1532:talk
1514:talk
1485:talk
1462:talk
1444:talk
1430:talk
1403:talk
1384:talk
1353:talk
1343:talk
1317:talk
1303:talk
1275:talk
1256:talk
1225:talk
1211:talk
1161:talk
1140:talk
1106:talk
1079:talk
1059:talk
1041:and
1020:talk
1001:talk
978:talk
946:talk
809:talk
783:talk
747:talk
716:talk
694:talk
690:meco
684:and
661:talk
636:talk
597:talk
585:Time
311:talk
280:talk
235:meco
218:talk
183:talk
159:talk
117:talk
102:here
76:the
2290:qua
2163:.
1747:not
1601:.
803:.--
313:)
3260:)
3245:)
3218:)
3204:)
3189:)
3161:)
3149:)
3145:)
3130:)
3116:)
3098:)
3080:)
3068:)
3064:)
3048:,
3037:)
3021:)
3006:)
2985:)
2981:)
2961:)
2903:)
2884:)
2853:)
2822:)
2758:)
2713:)
2692:)
2688:•
2655:)
2647:__
2640:)
2632:__
2625:)
2610:)
2595:)
2566:)
2544:)
2522:)
2503:)
2462:)
2441:)
2437:•
2400:)
2379:)
2364:)
2346:)
2312:)
2308:•
2272:)
2257:)
2239:)
2142:)
2118:)
2075:)
2071:•
2029:)
2005:,
1979:)
1975:•
1951:)
1947:•
1922:)
1918:•
1888:)
1840:;
1836:;
1806:)
1791:)
1776:)
1731:)
1701:)
1697:)
1647:)
1620:)
1616:•
1586:)
1582:•
1553:)
1534:)
1516:)
1491:)
1487:•
1464:)
1446:)
1432:)
1405:)
1390:)
1386:•
1355:)
1319:)
1305:)
1277:)
1258:)
1227:)
1213:)
1167:)
1163:)
1146:)
1142:•
1108:)
1081:)
1061:)
1022:)
1003:)
980:)
948:)
811:)
785:)
749:)
722:)
718:•
696:)
680:,
667:)
663:•
638:)
599:)
587:,
534:.
119:•
104:.
98:UN
78:UN
3288:)
3284:(
3256:(
3241:(
3222:)
3214:(
3200:(
3185:(
3157:(
3141:(
3126:(
3112:(
3094:(
3076:(
3060:(
3041:)
3033:(
3025:)
3017:(
3002:(
2977:(
2957:(
2947:(
2899:(
2880:(
2849:(
2818:(
2754:(
2709:(
2684:(
2651:(
2636:(
2621:(
2606:(
2591:(
2562:(
2540:(
2518:(
2499:(
2458:(
2433:(
2396:(
2375:(
2360:(
2342:(
2304:(
2268:(
2253:(
2235:(
2190:(
2179:(
2138:(
2114:(
2067:(
2025:(
1971:(
1943:(
1914:(
1884:(
1802:(
1787:(
1772:(
1727:(
1693:(
1643:(
1612:(
1578:(
1549:(
1538:)
1530:(
1512:(
1483:(
1460:(
1442:(
1428:(
1401:(
1382:(
1351:(
1341:(
1315:(
1301:(
1273:(
1254:(
1223:(
1209:(
1159:(
1138:(
1112:)
1104:(
1085:)
1077:(
1057:(
1026:)
1018:(
1007:)
999:(
976:(
944:(
807:(
781:(
745:(
714:(
692:(
659:(
634:(
595:(
309:(
278:(
216:(
181:(
157:(
115:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.