[ad_1]
– I have nothing to complain about. I think I have fewer and fewer reasons to regret over time. It's Michelet who should be sorry, says historian Mats Tangestuen in Dagsavisen.
He says this after the author Marte Michelet finished a message on Facebook that was addressed to him as follows: "The only good thing about you is to admit that you went too far.You were on TV, you were in a hurry It's understandable, but it's not right. "
– Serious complaint
The debate on Marte Michelet's book "What did the home front know?" Continues for several weeks, but it is particularly emphasized between Michelet and the historian Mats Tangestuen, director of the Jewish Museum.
A few days after the book "What did the home front know?" Launched on November 8, he met her during the NRK debate. It's there that he used the word "quote fraud" about his relationships with the book's sources. Since then, she has tried to make him regret, no luck.
On Wednesday, she published an article on her own Facebook page, in reaction to a column that he had published in Aftenposten:
"It does not take five books," writes Michelet.
"The starting point is that, on national television, you have accused me of significant fraud.You know that it is a very serious statement on which you must obviously invest or complain," writes Michelet, addressed directly to Mats Tangestuen, in response to his chronicle. There, he writes that Michelet "cuts the sources" and "clicks" with quotations in his book, then "adapting them to their own story".
He does not apologize, but writes that "the author must defend his own work and, therefore, the criticisms of which it is currently the object". "The sources that do not match are omitted or have little credibility, while the sources that are built according to the conclusions of the authors are very much explained," he says.
Read also: Marte Michelet criticizes his adherence to the history of war
"Dirty games"
Now, the Tangestuen told Dagsavisen that he will not regret the use of the word fraud, but that on the contrary, Michelet should be sorry.
– That's Michelet who should be sorry. I know the sources well and have already seen many at first reading. Looking again at the sources, I can only find more. The worst, however, is that his new interpretation is linked to a sensational number of "likely", "must assume" and "must have". It should be easy to see even if you do not know the substance well, "he told Dagsavisen.
In the chronicle, he writes that "the author must defend his own work and, hence, the critics that she now meets". "Sources that do not match are omitted or have little credibility, while sources that develop in the author's conclusions receive a great explanation."
In the Facebook article of Marte Michelet, she claims that the Tangestuen only comes up with an example of quote fraud, which she thinks has already come back.
"So your only example of quote fraud is spun and I'm counting on you to admit the mistake and apologize, it does not help you to discover the new categories" quote clicks "or" trimming sources "for avoid the word quote. "You can not get away with it," writes Michelet, who thinks the Tangestuen does not prove that it uses quoted fraud, but quotes quotes that it should include. completely different, says Michelet, who knows that Dagsavisen quotes his publication on Facebook, but states that she has no other comments than those published in the publication.
She writes on Facebook that she thinks it's a "very bad experience" for her to see that the audience room and other critics come up with "these baseless accusations feel now as truths ". "Then you can refer to each other in a credibility attack that gets stronger without it being necessary for one of you to document the charges." It's a really dirty game . "
Read also: Ragnar Ulstein: – Marte Michelet did not understand the war
Climate of difficult debate
Mats Tangestuen thinks that the climate of the discussion is agitated:
"It has evolved into a debate in which it is almost in competition by judging the most difficult moral judgment about the role of the state apparatus, the resistance movement and the majority population, and where all attempts at nuance are seen as the expression of a morally dubious agenda.There is also a moral imperative of applauding representations with an "appropriate" main perspective and ignoring the weaknesses of In such a debate, even the authors of weak books become almost insensitive to criticism.When criticism emanates from professional historians, it can be rejected as "defense of the traditional narrative of war". The fact that even Bjarte Bruland behaved suspiciously is a sign that something is really wrong, says Tangestuen, who will nonetheless attend the big meeting of the HL Center on December 20th. re, which will also participate Marte Michelet.
"As the climate of debate develops, it is more of a duty than the light that makes me participate in this debate.As a historian, I have the duty to tell myself when I see how the image is interpreted. by manipulating the source material I wish that more people knowing the subject feel a little this duty, but I understand that many people are distracted.I'll attend the seminar, but I have no particular expectation as to what will flow from it.
The only comment of Marte Michel on the statements of Mats Tangestuens is the following:
– The emergency room can not detect real errors in the book. We may disagree with the weights and interpretations, it's quite normal. But to accuse someone of quote fraud without any trace of documentation is quite special, she writes in a text message to Dagsavisen.
Source link
