Talk:Geert Mak

Untitled
I reinserted my line about the professional historian's judgement about Mak's work: "yet most professional historians and political scientists argue that Mak's work merely repeats outdated clichés, and that the author is unfamiliar with the current state of the disciplines and current debates within those disciplines". I don't know why Cmon saw the need to delete them, but they happen to be the judgment of most of my colleagues and me, and thus they have a place in a encyclopedia. If Cmon wants to allow only positive facts about Mak he should start a Geert Mak appreciation page somewhere else. Jahb (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rotzh does not seem to understand the NPOV policy. It does not mean that a lemma should not contain a points of view, but only that points of view should be presented fairly. Here's what wikipedia itself has to say on the topic: ''As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed''. In the case of Geert Mak, it is important to mention some of the controversy over his work because it is travel literature that is sometimes seen as at a par with academic history, which it is not, because Mak does not do any original research. If Rotzh thinks the controversy is not represented fairly he can edit the article, but simply deleting the whole paragraph that questions the historical quality of Mak's work (which simply IS an issue, he was also forced to make changes in his book about Jorwerd because historical details were wrong) makes him vulnarable to the charge that he thinks these pages are appreceation pages. The lemma has been graded as a stub, so it needs to be expanded, and mindless trashing of expansions by fans is not going to help. Jahb (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the NPOV policy is fine thanks. How about yours? The tone of this article is neutral and encyclopedic. There are no "positive and sympathetic facts" as you say on Mak in this article, just facts. The selective quotes by selective critics however are the point of view of "most of your colleagues and you", (whoever they are) and thus not encyclopedic. Rozth (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are free to fix whatever needs to be fixed. I improved on the original version (which may have been slightly biased) by adding Von der Dunk's opinion on Mak, and Mak's own opinion on his work, it should not be difficult to add some laudatory comments on Mak's work, but I leave hat to the fans. But progress is made by adding and editing, and not by trashing. Jahb (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No further movement here for over a year, so I guess everyone agrees the current version is ok. I removed the tag. Arnoutf (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)