445
edits
Talk:Integration and tolerance: Difference between revisions
Talk:Integration and tolerance (view source)
Revision as of 16:20, 14 January 2010
, 16:20, 14 January 2010no edit summary
No edit summary |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Paper title: | Paper title: | ||
Integration and tolerance | Integration and tolerance | ||
=== Reviewer´s assessment: === | === Reviewer´s assessment: === | ||
== 1. Basic criteria == | == 1. Basic criteria == | ||
| Line 40: | Line 36: | ||
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 85: | Line 79: | ||
--[[User:Ilknur Yilmaz|Ilknur Yilmaz]] 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Ilknur Yilmaz|Ilknur Yilmaz]] 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Assessment from January 4th == | |||
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! | |||