Talk:A Turning Point in National History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Criticism (and other edits by StuRat)

I had already planned to make a 'synopsis' section and that seemed like a better title than 'Claims made by the book'. And it isn't necessary to restate every time that it is something from the book when the section title already says that. Also, you can't make claims about the content of the book without having read it. Whether you can add criticism I'm not sure. I'm not in favour of too strict an application of the 'original research' rule, but here there seems to be a bit too much of it. This isn't your talk page. :) Especially strange is that you speak of criticism "especially from the United States". This suggests that you have read such criticism somewhere. I don't like to delete things people have written, so I'll try to convince you it needs to go or even get you to do that yourself (diplomacy in stead of brute force :) ).

The rogue states thing was actually something I wasn't sure about including. It was just one example in the book and I won't claim to understand what exactly the authors meant by it. About your reaction, there are indeed loads of countries that have done bad things, including the US. So is the US a rogue state? I suppose what the authors meant was that this is a gliding scale. The term 'rogue state' suggests there are two types of countries. An oversimplification that befits Bush.

Your (!) second point is pretty much what the authors claim. The US has been a force for the good in the last century. But the point is that it has stopped doing that. The US unilaterally broke the alliance (the US did that, not Europe!). So Europe has to come up with an answer.

About your third point, you wouldn't claim the US never made a mistake, would you? The authors acknowledge that the UN make mistakes, but it's the only reasonable option we have (apart from the EU?). Pretty much what I've been telling you too, over the last few weeks. By the way, is 'UN' singular too? And the media is? There are all sorts of media, right?

Who says Iran has plans for nuclear weapons? All that is needed is a good check on what they do with their material (as should be the case with any country that uses nuclear power). And what is needed for that is diplomacy, not the bullying by Israel (they actually attacked the plant, which is effectively a declaration of war - rogue state perchance? :) Aren't the roguest states the ones that unilaterally invade other countries?). By the way, who checks on the nuclear plants of the US? Oh and aren't you all in favour of nuclear power? Then why deny other countries that miraculous power source?

But all this is argumentation between us. The article is supposed to be about the book (and 'official' reactions to it, if any). I've contacted Karel van Wolferen, so maybe he will participate in the article. I prefer to wait for that before I expand the synopsis (if I find the time for it). DirkvdM 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it isn't appropriate to carry on a general conversation here. We should only discuss things related to the article. I will copy your rant to my talk page and debate it there, and only include things here which affect the article:
  • In English, any group, when viewed collectively, is normally construed as singular, so "the US is, the UN is, the media is...". However, if referring to members of the group, use the plural form: "the states of the US are, the countries of the UN are, the forms of the media are...". Lots of native speakers mess that rule up, too.
  • "Also, you can't make claims about the content of the book without having read it." I don't believe I do, but only offer the common criticism to the claims you said the book makes. I assume this book is only available in Dutch, in which case you are disallowing most English speakers (those who don't also know Dutch) from adding any criticism. You also didn't add any yourself, making it a rather one-sided article. I don't think that's right. You will notice I left all your content intact, and I would expect the same courtesy from you.
That referred to your addition about the Madrid bombing in the synopsis. Putting that there is like stating that the book states that, which it doesn't. DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying the book claims the government of Spain has always been opposed to the Iraq war ? In that case, a new section is needed called "Inaccuracies" which describes untrue statements in the book, since the Spanish gov most definitely supported the Iraq was before the 2004 election. StuRat 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
You brought up the bombings, not the book. So your 'factual inaccuracy' claim is barking up a tree that isn't there. DirkvdM 08:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Your summary of the book implied that Spain had always opposed the Iraq war. This is untrue. StuRat 05:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "I'm not in favour of too strict an application of the 'original research' rule, but here there seems to be a bit too much of it." Might I point out that you making claims about what the book says also qualifies as original research ? If you had provided footnotes referencing experts who had provided each claim about the book's meaning and content, that would not be original research. For example, an amateur might read Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal and conclude that it advocates cannibalism, while an expert could identify it as actually satire aimed at England's mistreatment of the Irish. So, I say we call a truce on any "no original research" claims, or there will be no article at all.
  • "Instead" is written as one word, like "into".
  • "Who says Iran has plans for nuclear weapons?" I believe that's what England, France, Germany, and the US all suspect, but that's besides the point, since I don't make that claim. I only said they have a nuclear program.
May I now correct your English? It's 'beside the point', without an 's'. :) DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I've heard it both ways. StuRat 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I Googled it both ways and it seems your version is used, just a lot less often. But that doens't mean it's right. I understand 'besides' the way wiktionary explains it. And my English-Dutch dictionary (a fairly good one) seems to agree. 'Beside' means 'next to'. And an argument can miss the point and thus end up beside it, or next to it. I don't see 'besides' having that meaning. That would actualy mean 'in addition to' the point, which sounds more like the opposite (if anything). DirkvdM 08:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
That's the way I used it, as in "I didn't say that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, but, in addition to this point, there are many countries who believe that Iran is doing just that...". StuRat 05:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Now for specific points on the edit you reverted:
  • Adding "The" in front of Netherlands in the link wasn't my doing, there's a bot that did that. It's rather pointless to fight a bot, it will just keep changing it back.
That's a bit of a problem (though nothing major) because adding 'the' causes a pointless redirect. Indeed, how does one argue with a bot? DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Calling the section "synopsis" is fine, but that doesn't make it clear that it's a synopsis of claims made by the book, not proven fact. I will therefore restore my clarifications on that point.
  • I believe "the process" is a bit more formal than "what", and more in line with Wiki style.
Saying that what the US started is a process is interpretation. Aka OR. DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
So it's better to say the US started a "what" ? StuRat 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Not a 'something'. Just what the book explains (and I tried to convey in the synopsis). Why would that have to fit in one word? DirkvdM 08:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Spain was initially a supporter of the Iraq war, and sent troops, prior to the Madrid bombings and subsequent election, so I believe my clarification is correct.
Spain wasn't. The government was. So they got voted away. Democracy at work. DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That pic was huge, causing display problems on my rather narrow screen (and many other people's, I'm sure). The only justification I can see for such a huge pic is if there is some critical detail that can't been seen at a smaller size. I don't see how that applies here, you can see the 3 people just fine at the smaller size.
I checked by making my window smaller (less than 800 pixels wide) and it looked fine. Maybe a browser thing? Or do you mean the white space under it because of the bullets? Anyway, it's rather small now. One should at least be able to recognise the author. And stating that that is the author also makes sense. Why did you remove that? This is the only thing I'll change for now, with an intermediate size. See if that looks ok on your monitor. DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
My window is less than 800 characters wide (that's how wide my laptop screen is, but the window is narrower than that). StuRat 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Characters? I suppose you don't mean pixels, because that would be minute. But how wide is a character then (including surrounding space)? Youlet the indentation go quite far on your talk page, so it can't be too narrow. And why not use the full width of the screen? I see many people do that but don't get the point. DirkvdM 08:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant pixels. I use the rest of the screen to display other things, like an active IM session. StuRat 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Repeating people's positions in the rather large caption seems unnecessary, as they appear directly to the left of the pic, anyway. One addition that would be useful, however, is if you could identify the position of the third person (Giles Scott-Smith).
They're from left to right, that's clear isn't it? DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. StuRat 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please try to include edit summaries when changing an article. I don't bother for talk pages, but feel they are important in the actual article.
Yeah, I always forget that, focused as I am on what I write. Sometimes I add one at the start, but then have to change it with every new addition until it gets too cumbersome. You've got a point, but it is also recommended not to do loads of small edits but do them all at once. DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
One huge edit is a problem, as Wikipedia seems to get errors so often on me there is a good chance such a large edit will be lost. It also leads to endless edit conflicts and doesn't give me enough characters to describe all the changes. StuRat 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
StuRat 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't help that the book is in Dutch. The only alternative would be not to have any articles on Dutch books in the English Wikipedia.
Another alternative is giving more flexibility to those who offer a balancing opinion, but are incapable of reading the book directly, due to the language issue. Also, is there in article in the Dutch Wikipedia ? And does it offer a balancing opinion or is it as one-sided as your article here (before I added the other side) ? StuRat 15:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is as one-sided as the book is. Or isn't. Actually, the book states that the info we get through the media here in Europe (let alone the US!) is one-sided and the book tries to balance that. Ultimately, the article is about the book, so whichever-sided the book is, thus the synopsis-section should be. I'm still not sure whether there should be any comments and what these might be based on. That's the real issue in this whole discussion. But they should be based on some source. DirkvdM 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
About your criticism, like I said, that's original research. Whether writing a synopsis is original research is a good one. I came across this before. What can be used as a source and how is a difficult issue and I would like to know if there are any Wikirules on this. Copying an entire (piece of) text is a violation of copyright. So it all has to be rewritten, which cannot be done without some interpretation. But a big difference is that I base myself on the book, which the article is about (so that is the reference) and you (I assume) base yourself on other writings that are not about the book but may be applicable. And by doing that, I think you overstep a line. What I do is, I believe, called 'source-based research' in the original research article. Not sure, though. I suppose we need to call in an expert to solve this. I'll drop a note at that talk page. And of course I should point out that you don't cite your sources. DirkvdM 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The main issue I see is: Which is worse, original research or a horribly biased article only giving one side's opinion ? You could add a criticism or two yourself, if you can manage to do so without using them as "straw man" arguments. That is, without intentionally weakening the criticisms to make them unconvincing. I find arguing from the other side to be an excellent exercise, and like to play the "devil's advocate" myself, on occasion. For example, I've argued both sides of the gun control and capital punishment issues. StuRat 15:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I like to do something similar. For exmple, when I think I have a brilliant idea I instantly start thinking about what's wrong with it and then when I can't find any faults I get obnoxiously convinced the idea is right. So then I have to call in a second opinion. Which I did here. :) Only one reaction so far at the OR talk page. Which confirms what I said that a synopsis isn't OR. It's the use of a primary source. And an article may be entirely based on primary sources. Why should there be a balancing act like your comments? (excuse the pun) Of course there is a bias, namely that of the authors. It's called making a point. Which is often stressed. Possibly to elicit a response. If there are any comments on the book written by others, feel free to add a synopsis of those. But what you do is OR.
I admit there is a problem with the fact that the book is in Dutch. But I just happen to be active at the English Wikipedia and be able to read various other languages. I'd say people like me (in this sense I mean) should be extra welcome. It's actually encouraged to translate articles between Wikipedias. So maybe I should have first written an article in the Dutch Wikipedia, waited for responses there and then translated that. I'll do just that, but backwards, and translate my synopsis here into Dutch. So you see, you've only helped spread the word by feeding the troll. :) (Now go and sit in a corner and feel sorry for yourself.) DirkvdM 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that offering your own synopsis is not OR. Your opinions can taint the way you summarize the book, and, in this case, how you translate it, as well. And due to the language issue, I have no way to verify what you claim it says, either. So, as far as I know, it could all be your personal opinions. I'm not actually accusing you of this, but rather pointing out how a personal synopsis and translation of a book is not ideal. StuRat 09:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to you making the existence of the book known, it's listing the opinions in the book, with no attempt to show that those opinions are not shared by all, that seems to be an NPOV violation, to me. I am guessing that's exactly what you will do again, in Dutch, though. StuRat 09:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Any Dutch editors will be able to check this. They may be a minority here, but there will probably be more Dutch editors here than, say, Norwegian editors over at the Norwegian Wikipedia, but that is no argument not to write any articles there. (A slightly, though not entirely, lame argument :) .) I actually suspect there will be more Dutch editors here than on the Dutch Wikipedia. But anyway, there will be less resistance there because there won't be any US editors spewing their POV. :) I now realise that that would have been a much cleverer approach. Once the Dutch article is established, surely you can't object to a translation of that into English, now can you?
As to what constitutes OR, I'd say the people over at the OR page can be considered to have more expertise on the subject. More than one reaction would be nice, though, but even if there are only 3 votes and 2 of them point in one direction and one of those 2 is the closest we can come to an expert, well, you fill in the conclusion.
Still no reaction on your edits, though. I'll wait a bit and then maybe put up an rfc. That's the UN approach - get in as many people as possible. The EU approach would be to dangle a carrot in front of you, but I don't have any carrots you'd want, so that doesn't work here. :) DirkvdM 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Latest development: Someone else has joined in the discussion at the OR talk page and said the obvious: you need to produce sources. You're being cornered. Or is an rfc needed as well? The ball is in your court. DirkvdM 08:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case slap the template on in that says it needs sources. You don't have any English sources listed either. I still say criticism without sources is far better than a horribly biased article. StuRat 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Another comment on the OR talk page, with two suggestions. I'll be nice and implement the softer approach. But if you don't source your sections I'll have to play it a bit rougher. If I get around to it, that is. DirkvdM 18:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
No reaction after a week. The proper thing to do would be to call in some more commentators via an rfc, but I've already bothered some other people and maybe you've already 'seen the light' (ahem...) but have 'conveniently forgotten' :) . So I'll remove your comments and see what happens. DirkvdM 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Here is the current translation:

"This is an important and brave book. The writers may expect a lot of resistance and indignation, but it will certainly awake the daydreamers of the trustworthy atlanticism from their comfortable snooze."

Is this more accurate ?

"This is an important and brave book. The writers may expect a lot of resistance and indignation, but it will certainly awake those dreaming of reliable Atlanticism from their comfortable snooze."

This is meant to be a translation of the meaning, not necessarily a word-for-word translation. Dreaming means "hoping for the future" more than daydreaming. Atlanticism isn't really a word in English, AFAIK, but there doesn't seem to be any equivalent, so it's OK, but I think it should be in caps because Atlantic is. StuRat 08:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This was from the back cover of the book. Because it's a literal quote one should be careful with interpretations (such as joining two sentences into one). I wasn't sure about that bit either but decided to stick to a literal translation, to stay on the safe side. If dreaming means "hoping for the future" more than daydreaming, then that would certainly be a bad translation because the daydreamers dream about a continuation of the past and close their eyes to recent changes. That that is the point made here is an interpretation I can safely make.
I don't care about capitalisation of 'atlanticism' (apparently it is an English word and that article is written by USians). In Dutch it isn't capitalised, but that doesn't say a lot. I could also use the argument that 'the Pacific' is capitalised but 'pacifism' isn't, but that's a bit of a lame argument. :) DirkvdM 11:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to say it more clearly, "dreaming" may be taken literally or figuratively, while "daydreaming" is only taken literally, AFAIK. So, it's not a very suitable translation. I also advise against literal translations, or "go put your nose to the grindstone" (which really means you should work harder) becomes "go grind down your nose", LOL. StuRat 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other info needed

A few other items that would be useful on any book article:

  • It's ISBN number.
  • It's popularity (sales figures, best seller list status, etc.).
  • It's format (hardcover/paperback).
  • Number of pages.

StuRat 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete article ?

Since this article contains no verifiable (English) sources, I'm tempted to delete it outright. It also contains support statements for the book with no balancing criticism. However, I will settle for just restoring the more balanced version, for now. StuRat 08:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty Dutch editors working on the English Wikipedia who could check the source. You are suggesting that there should be no articles on non-English books in the English Wikipedia. And of course the other way around. Any book that is only published in English should not have an article in any other Wikipedia than the English one. That's absurd. Time to call in still more second opinions (in this case that would be a sixth opinion and upwards). I will now put up an rfc. DirkvdM 11:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
If you are talking about English books for which no Dutch translation or Dutch reviews exist, then I agree. This would mean Dutch editors would have no way to verify the claims made about the book. StuRat 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
And about the 'balance' thing, as you like to call it. That's been settled already at the Original Research Talk Page. If you don't provide sources that should go. Or can you find anyone to support your pov? And why didn't yo participate in that discussion then, if you disagree with what was said but still want to keep your edits in? DirkvdM 11:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I've now participated in that discussion. It looks like you conveniently "forgot" to mention that all your sources are in Dutch, with no English translation available, so are unverifiable by the vast majority or Wikipedia editors. StuRat 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussion there might be 'cold' now, but we'll see. Anyway, one thing that came out of that is that you need to provide sources for your comments or else delete them. You still haven't responded to that. Me forgetting to mention the book is in Dutch was indeed sloppy, but I suppose I assumed the respondents would have a look at the article, as with an rfc, since such discussions can only continue here. DirkvdM 06:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe they suggested you put the "sources needed" tag on those items. Some allowances should definitely be made for the fact that there is currently no way for me to provide sources, since that would require me to learn Dutch. The "sources needed" tag is now on the entire article, as neither my sections nor yours can be verified by the majority of Wikipedia editors, owing to the lack of English translations. So, again, I have no objection to my sections being deleted, so long as the remainder of the article is also deleted for the same reason, no verifiable sources. StuRat 10:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

I don't think you can exclude books written in other languages (and never translated). Certainly for Dutch (and most major languages), there are enough editors around that understand the language and English as well. Many comics discussed have never been translated in English either, but that does not mean that they have no importance or encyclopedic value. I don't think there is any guideline that says that objects of articles and/or the sources have to be in English. I do think that when you create an article, you should think about your audience. Is anyone going to look for this book in the English Wikipedia? Has it enough importance, internationally, for inclusion? Seeing that other books of the same author have been translated, I guess it warrants inclusion, although the mention of it in other articles (especially in Foreign relations of the United States) seems more like a promotional action than a reflection of its true importance. I have a problem as well with the title of this page, as that is the editor's own translation of the book, and not something anyone would ever look for. If a book is not translated, use its original title, as that is the only correct (i.e. encyclopedic, verifiable, searchable) one. You should of course then give a translation in the article. Fram 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there are some Dutch speaking readers of the English encyclopedia. My point is that it's a very small portion of the total. To me, this is similar to using a source which requires a Wall Street Journal subscription to verify, this excludes the majority of readers from the verification process, and should therefore not be allowed as the sole source. StuRat 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I finally found the Wikirule on this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. It turns out that one can use foreign language sources if no translation or similar source in English is available. And that is the case here. Also, I wrote a translation in the Dutch Wikipedia, where it can be checked by locals in their own language. It's the 'wrong way around' but comes down to the same thing, if you think about it. When someone at the ref desk asked about translating an English article to the Chinese one, I asked about this at the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Article_tranlation. DirkvdM 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am a long-time contributor to the Dutch Wikipedia. The Dutch version of this article suffers from major pov problems, where possible (I did not read the book) pov of the authors is presented as factual information. I am still unsure to address these and have not yet tagged the article. A very superfluous statement refering to its contents, was included in ***the main article on the United States*** in nl.wikipedia, with a full quote of the book title in the article, linked to the article on the book. I think that the book is a legitimate topic for the Dutch Wikipedia, but should be discussed from a neutral point of view.
Here, texts were recently deleted from the article, refering to a discussion on the talk page that would justify the deletion. I could not find it, so I will restore the deleted texts. Gidonb 07:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I deleted the texts again. I would like to think over their contribution to the article, if any, some more. 131.193.91.143 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Its first two thirds"

The summary states the "first two thirds" of the books are on changes in American foreign policy. Care to tell us what the other third is about, DirkvdM? Is the other third the topic of the second paragraph, i.e. policy recommendations? Gidonb 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add that later, during a further expansion of that section, but never got around to it. And now it's so long ago that I'd have to start reading the bok again. The last one-third is about that the Netherlands (and Europe) should realise that the US changed from good to evil and how it should deal with the new situation. And that it's time Europe took over where the US left off. Something like that, but this is from memory, so I won't add that to the article. DirkvdM 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, I already wrote that in the article. :) That's indeed the second paragraph in that section. DirkvdM 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced POV

Dirk, you can't just remove the "Criticisms" section and leave only the "Support" section, that's highly unbalanced POV. You will just have to accept the criticisms section I provided, even though it lacks sources, unless you can find someone else who can provide the needed balance with sources. BTW, are you yourself incapable of finding any flaws with the book ? Why don't you contribute to the criticisms section ? StuRat 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the ref desk. Any criticism can't come from us. You'd have to find a source for it. So I'll delete that bit again. Of course the support section is pov. It's van Agt's pov. And the pov of a former Dutch PM should be allowed on Wikipedia, don't you think? Imagine someone deleting Clinton-quotes with the motivation that that's just his opinion. :) DirkvdM 19:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)