Talk:Integration and tolerance

Dear Ilknur, you have made a very good and polite analysis of the article (which itself could be understood as an attempt to countervail author’s own relatively negative but not too rational perception of the problem). You have made a very good job as you have raised interesting point how to make some of the statements (which generalize to a great extent) concrete and thus rational, then suitable for mutual dialogue.

--Jana Dlouha 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Paper title:
Integration and tolerance

1. Basic criteria
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) High

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) High

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (High/Medium/Low) High

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) Medium

2. Summary Comments for Author(s)
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) High

2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) Medium

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) High

2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) Yes

2.5. Current information (Yes/No) Yes

2.6. Methodology (Yes/No)

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) Readable

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) No

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) Yes

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) Yes

3. Written Comments for Author(s)
Concerning the basic criteria there is a high relevance to the general theme, because these kind of social problems of globalisation the population is confronted with directly. Also the cohesion of the subject title and the content is given. This article also gives good reference to theoretical principles and furthermore connects these theories with the current practice and current situation in Europe. The originality of the content is on a medium level, maybe because we, as participants of the “global population” are immediately affected by this issue, why most of the discussed topics are already known or “heard-of” a bit. Furthermore other authors, theories and works are well referred to, in adequate way concerning the citation rules and also content-related, what means that the referred authors and works fit in well.

Concerning the general writing style the article is easily readable, fluent and comprehensible, but for a logical organisation a more explicit structure could be helpful. For instance by formulating some subtitles. To comment on the submission requirements, the length of the article is adequate and the citation rules are adhered.

In the following I will try to make some remarks concerning the content in detail. First of all, as already mentioned, it would be easier for the reader to follow the text, if the article can be divided into sub-themes with specific subtitles, for instance “globalisation social conditions”, “initial situation”, “definition of Europe or European identity”, “main part (maybe with different sub-titles), “approach to solution” and “conclusion”. To make sure the reader does not loses the thread.

In the beginning of the article, the “presence of the Islamists” is mentioned, that “is not new”. But I think there are distinctions between the terms “Islamist” and “Moslem”. In the beginning part, the “presence of the Islamists” is mentioned, what seems to be “normal” in the society nowadays. But I think, what we are used to is the presence of Muslims. Thus I am not sure, if maybe the other term would be fitting better or if I got something wrong concerning these phrases. For my comprehension, the term Islamist describes a (political) ideology that is based on the religion of the Islam. Moreover the term “Islamist” recalls fundamental characteristics in everyday language. Thus I think the European population does not consider fundamentals as “normal” immigrants that have to be tolerated.

The next part that deals with the definition of the European identity is well chosen and written. Basic comprehension of this difficult question is needed. The Problem and the difficulty of determination the European Identity and the question, who is part of it and who is to be excluded, is made clear. The problems and the contradictions on political level for instance are made comprehensible for the reader.

In the following part there are some indications that the unease or the hushed up intolerance is deliberately stoked up and provoked by some people in the society. I think that this is a very interesting aspect. Although “globalisation”, “multiculturalism” and “integration” are terms often used and spread in media, politics and education, there are always different voices that appear. So it would be interesting to learn something about the source of these spread of opinions. That is to say the persons, groups or institutions that may have an interest in the spread of this attitude and the reasons for that may be an interesting aspect.

In the last part that deals with some approaches to find solutions, integration and assimilation are mentioned as steps the immigrants have to do in this process. First it can be added, that the way to a solution must be mutual, because no effort and endeavours of the one can be successful if the other keeps a refusing attitude. For instance the efforts of immigrant to integrate themselves would be futile, if the “local Europeans” keep rising stoked up and provoking voices and also the other way around. Another question that occurs to my mind personally is the level of integration and assimilation. Exaggerated it can be argued If a Muslim immigrant that colours the hair (blond), gets an surname characteristic for that European country, and starts celebrating Easter and Christmas gets immigrated and accepted as European, or is he even assimilated or is he still the “other”?

In the article there is also mentioned the integration or assimilation of immigrants without giving up their own identity. This is an often used formulation, but it is just as difficult and discussed. Maybe the difficulty of “integrating / assimilating without losing the own culture and identity” can be described, and maybe some steps to solution can be shown.

In general I think this article is successful with maybe some minor modifications.

4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):
4.1. Publish as is

4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications

4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications

4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):

4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course

4.4.2. Technically deficient

4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor

--Ilknur Yilmaz 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá
The text has not very good formally (structure and logic, citations etc.). And also your arguments are not well justified, you have written your oppinions and not discussed with opposing views.

Remarks: The main problem of the article is that it does not stick to some problem that could be solved by some policy, institution or regulation. In this respect, the conclusion is not very fair and could not be realized (do you imagine an action based on rational decision?). We are not solving psychological problems here but trying to improve situation in some sphere of our competence – find some measures that could be realized, find responsible actors and problems on which they could focus. Then: if you consider the problem to be psychological, then the solution should be psychological too -that means we at least should learn more mutually about our cultures. Otherwise, if you try to find political solution, it should not be an instutution itself, but some institunionalized dialogue.

Formally in your article are no titles, it is difficult to orientate. You do not cite many of your statements, or give good reason for them (e.g. However, it is very good to have some academics who deeply understand the issue and do not let anyone to distort the truth publicly.) That is not a solution – academic work on their relatively abstract level. Citation should follow station rules (mentioned several times).

Main problem is that you stay on a very surface of the issue, and work with only catchphrases, not with some historical or other facts. Then – your solution is to change these phrases, but why? I am also afraid of some Muslims – and love others. Why should I change my mind? Should I love everybody in a whole World? Is this a sort of paradise? No, I should have as strong conviction as possible – but this should be rational, critical etc. And there should be some ground for rationality in all this.

OK, i tis more „meditation“ than academic essay, but still you need to be very specific (in our course).

--Jana Dlouha 14:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from December 8th
Basicaly the text is relaively OK, needs to be structured (titles). It is more reflection of your and general public thoughts than thorough analysis (that's good for you). There are more minorities whose activities could endanger our civilisation (Chinese and their products; Jewish and their religion; Russian and their mafias) - nobody cares. So where is the problem? You should express it explicitely!

If you strictly distinguish "we" and "they", you are in the same position of protecting your culture as "they" are. What is worth protecting? You might come to an interesting conclusion - this could be some universal concept (human rights? sense for justice? our God?)

Just go to the roots, not only accept what somebody says!