90
edits
Talk:Integration and tolerance: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Integration and tolerance (view source)
Revision as of 19:35, 12 December 2010
, 19:35, 12 December 2010no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. | |||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
==== Paper title: ==== | |||
Integration and tolerance | Integration and tolerance | ||
=== Reviewer´s assessment (Ilknur Yilmaz): === | |||
=== Reviewer´s assessment: === | |||
== 1. Basic criteria == | == 1. Basic criteria == | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) Yes | 2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) Yes | ||
== 3. Written Comments for Author(s) == | == 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 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. | ||
| Line 83: | Line 81: | ||
4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor | 4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor | ||
--[[User:Ilknur Yilmaz|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). | |||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|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! | |||
'''Caroline Reibe: "vote on quality"''' | |||
Hi Jana, hi Josef! | |||
Here comes my second "vote on quality". I liked reading the essay but I found a few minor criticisms. I think there should have been more references that support his argumentation or highlight some special aspects. | |||
When he writes about the Islamic population and the fear about it, I missed an explanation that is different from fear of "the unbeknown". I would probably had mentioned the attack on the US in 2001 that caused a big anxiety towards all arabic cultures. This goes along with general suspicion and prejustice against this cultural group. | |||
It would have been nice to hear arguments of both sides in a more structured way and then come later to a conclusion. | |||
But I really liked the paragraph on European History ("What is the European identity?") because it gives a good short overview about the European values and the historical steps that were taken to todays stage. | |||
--[[User: | To sum up, I'd like to say, that I found the theme really interesting and the essay good and easily to read. | ||
Best regards, | |||
Caro | |||
--[[User:Reibe|Reibe]] 18:35, 12 December 2010 (CET) | |||