Talk:Reuven Gal

NPOV dispute
Please let me know who has disputed the neutrality of this article. What facts do you dispute, precisely which sections do you think are not neutral, and why? This article has over 70 references and is exhaustively researched. I hope you will make a strong case for your dispute. Thank you. Eric Scubeesnax (talk) 05/04/2010
 * I have disputed the neutrality of this article because it does nothing but glorify the subject. There are many weasel words that compromise the article, ex. "is a renowned Israeli." Many of the subheadings are in need of work as well "A Military Psychologist with Battlefield Experience," "A Leading Voice for Peace and Co-Existence," and "Building a Peace Trail." The last sentence in the article appears to be the end of a thesis paper about how great this guy was "Today, Reuven Gal continues his work to promote peace, volunteerism and service by serving on advisory panels and speaking at conferences around the world." In fact, the majority of this article is about the peace process he initiated. As someone who worked for the prime minister, I see no criticism that I would expect he has received. It is important that Wikipedia tell both sides of the story and maintain a neutral point of view. Please realize that Neutral does not mean "not well referenced." I applaud the referencing work that you have done. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. You've raised some interesting points. According to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines on NPOV: "Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are."  In order to tell both sides of a story, two opposing POVs must actually exist.  In all my extensive research over 6 months, I never found one person who was critical of Dr. Gal, one negative opinion, one negative quote.  Are you asking me to make stuff up, if it does not exist? You're saying: people must have criticized Dr. Gal.  Really?  Who?  You're saying: bad stuff MUST exist.  Really?  Where?  Where's your proof?  Where's your research?


 * The Wikipedia guidelines and rules say that an NPOV "should be followed up by actual contributions to the article." So I invite you.  Please feel free to Google Dr. Gal and make your own contributions to this article. Offer a competing POV of the facts and include any information you think is fair, for the sake of "balance."  Also, you mention what you call "weasel" words.  Your use of this word is adversarial, rude and an insult to the hard work I've done to write this article.  At any rate, I have agreed to make many of the changes you recommend.  Here's a list of words which might fit into your definition: "renowned" - Dictionary.reference.com gives the definition of renowned as "celebrated; famous."  It lists synonyms as: famed, distinguished, honored, notable.  Dr. Gal is famous around the world in his field.  He is admired by his peers and celebrated by the fact that he has received awards, which I listed.  Dr. Gal is honored vis a vis the fact that he was awarded a Senior Research Associateship by the National Academy of Science and he's been recognized by the National Institute of Mental Health, the University of California, Berkeley, and Tel Aviv University.  He currently serves as an Advisory Board Member of alongside Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel.  This does not represent a biased POV.  It is a justified and reasonable use of the word "renowned."  Nevertheless, I have deleted it.


 * "noted American author Donald J. Eberly" - I removed the word "noted"


 * "As a champion of these ideas' - removed phrase


 * "as an acknowledged expert on military psychology" - removed phrase


 * Also, you said you were concerned about some of the subheadings:


 * "A Military Psychologist with Battlefield Experience" - Fact: He fought in three wars and is a colonel with battlefield experience. Fact: He is a military psychologist.  He served as the chief psychologist for Israeli Defense Forces and has written 5 books on the subject.  This statement is not only factually correct and indisputable, it is unbiased.  I invite you to show how this is favoring any one POV. "A Leading Voice for Peace and Co-Existence" - Fact: He worked with the prime minister to establish the Israeli version of the Peace Corps.  He worked hard to include people of all races, creeds and religions (including nomadic Bedouins, Druze and Arabs).  Dr. Gal has served at the highest levels of his government in a peace-making capacity.  He is respected in Israel and admired by his peers in the United States.  He is in fact a leading voice in his field, which is peaceful co-existence.  He has written 5 books on the subject.  I invite you to explain how he is not a leading voice.


 * As to the ending, it accurately reflects what Dr. Gal is doing today. Dr. Gal is retired.  Is it reasonable for the reader to want to know what Dr. Gal is doing now?  Of course!  It is pertinent and generic to the article.  He writes books and speaks at major conferences on Peace and Civic Service.  I invite you to explain how this favors any particular POV.


 * I have carefully read Wikipedia's article on Neutral point of view. With the changes I've made, I believe this article now meets the criteria for Neutral POV. The guidelines say that "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements."  I have provided 70 in-line references for this article.  I invite you to add a few more of your own. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.  Eric Scubeesnax (talk)
 * I applaud your work on this topic, and I agree that the exhaustive referencing effort makes this article one of the better ones on Wikipedia today. I have read all of your comments and re-read the article. I think that the edits that are necessary now are more in line with making this article read more like an encyclopedia article. We don't want to use "hooks" like "A Military Psychologist with Battlefield Experience," but instead something that describes the section in a brief and neutral way like "Military experience" I have added this page to my to-do list. I think that with a little copyediting (as well as adding interwiki links in the body), this page could easily become a WP:GA.
 * Sounds good. I'd be honored to have helped to write a WP:GA.  I appreciate all of your hard work too.  Thank you very much for your helpful comments.  Eric  Scubeesnax (talk)