This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 12 November 2004 ('The Guardian' mentions Ludo Martens as "thoroughly familiar with Congolese problems."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:17, 12 November 2004 by El C (talk | contribs) ('The Guardian' mentions Ludo Martens as "thoroughly familiar with Congolese problems.")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)"Recognized authority" on the Congo? That means at least one professional historian has, in print, said that his work should be taken as authoritative. I have yet to see such a statement myself. So what's the basis for this claim? Stan 16:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Do you monitor my edit history? I can hardly imagine another reason for your finding this article within an hour or so of its creation.
- You say you've never seen a citation of Martens as an authority on the Congo? I take it you're well versed in the French-language literature on the subject of Congolese political history?
- I don't accept your assertion that some "professional historian" must write "Martens is an authority on the Congo" for it to be true. He has written numerous books on the subject, some of which I have listed here, not to mention countless articles over the past thirty years. He is widely interviewed, within the Congo and without, and frequently appears on television and at international conferences as an invited speaker. His work is of a uniformly high quality and deserves better than to be sneered at by someone who obviously hasn't read it. Shorne 18:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As part of my admin-ly duties, I monitor "new pages", once in the morning and once in the evening - imagine my pleasure at seeing a nice start on an articleworthy person, since I was expecting to have to do it myself. But "recognized authority" is a pretty big claim, more so than something like "expert" or "specialist"; as someone who has been energetic in criticizing people for not providing proofs for their assertions, it was a little surprising to see you say something like this without providing any facts in support. Since the rest of us are not well-versed in the Congo literature, we're dependent on you (who presumably is) to provide the evidence of Martens' leading position. Poking through Martens' rather paltry number of Google hits, I saw lots of copies of his Stalin book, and lots of addresses to party congresses, but not much else. Sheer number of books and articles is not particularly meaningful, since anybody can run a printing press, and television, well, all the rightwingers you despise make television appearances too. What counts among scholars is peer review; who are Martens' peers, and how do they rate him? What about his day job anyway? Was he ever a professor? You've got a start, but there are lots of questions I'm terribly curious about! Stan 20:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thousands upon thousands of hits is paltry? Martens is most certainly a "recognized authority," whether he is a leading authority is another question altogether. That said, I see nothing wrong with your request for this to be better qualified. Allow me to provide the discussion with some cursory aid on this front:
According to Ludo Martens, (Chairman of Belgium's Labour Party who is
thoroughly familiar with Congolese problems)...
(The Guardian, 7 February, 2001) El_C
- As an example of what I'm talking about, think of Crawford Young, who seems to be an acknowledged authority on the Congo - the blurb for his lecture at Copenhagen's Center for African Studies says he "stands out as the leading and most influential political scientist working on African politics" , and there are dozens of other such statements by people in the scholarly community. Stan 20:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)