This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Eric Hobsbawm was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 October 2012. |
I removed stuff about him being a communist. You need to prove to the reader he is. This is a very sensitive legal issue. Please don't just revert go get the sources you need to "prove" he is. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.172.26 (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2006
I don't think anybody's biography should start with the criticisms directed towards such person. It is missleading. I think they should always figure at the end of the article, when the reader is more likely tounderstand the context of the controversy.--Varano 10:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
SIGN YOUR POSTS USING ~~~~ Travb 02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hobsbawm's whole political life centers on his early decision to become a communist and thus to join the Communist Party in Britain, where he was a student and where he established his career. Calling someone a communist is not controversial except in the US, where it is used as an empty insult. Hobsbawm became controversial in part when he told a British interviewer that he thought the costs of establishing communism, in the millions of lives would have been worth it, if it had succeeded, though he had in fact also written that they would not. His decision to remain a member of the party after Khrushchev's revelations was a more important source of controversy. Actio 19:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)actio
From the article: Hobsbawm has attracted criticism for his continued support for Communism. In an interview with Canadian cultural critic Michael Ignatieff on British television, he responded to the question of whether 20 million deaths would have been justified if the proposed Communist utopia had been created as a consequence by saying "yes". When did that interview took place?Daniel Trielli 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
From: Colombia’s elections: the regional exception http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-protest/colombia_3342.jsp
When the historian Eric Hobsbawm visited Colombia in 1963, he wrote that he had discovered a country where the avoidance of a social revolution had made violence the constant, universal, and omnipresent centre of public life.
What book is or article is this refering too? It is frustrating, becuse the author doesnt mention which book this is.
Signed: Travb 02:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I have already read three books written by Hobsbawm, but I actually don´t really like his style. I feel he goes so deep in the details that it is hard to get the general pic of what happened throughout the history. However, he is the unique one I know so far that wrote on the modern history with specific books for each century, and that´s nice. I would say the size of the books are also ideal to the proposed task. In this token, does anyone here could tell wikipedia readers some writer that could substitute Hobsbawm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.196.125.95 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2007
After reading the entire review of Hobsbawm's memoirs by Perry Anderson in the London Review of Books, and the one by Pryce-jones (?) in the New Criterion, I removed the latter. It is not a serious review but merely a screed and in my opinion focuses too much on his rejection of identification with israel although jewish.
I would welcome a serious negative review, but it is not possible to read Anderson's without some serious questions about Hobsbawm's political choices. Serious criticism is more likely to come from the UK, but considering that Hobsbawm has been accorded numerous awards and honors for his professional career,it is not likely to be as one-sided and ill considered as the New Criterion review of H's memoirs. Actio 19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is included in the category Egyptian Jews. Hobsbawm was indeed born in Alexandria, and lived there until he was aged two. But both of his parents were European, Ashkenazi Jews temporarily resident in Egypt, which at the time was a British colony; they were not part of the Egyptian Jewish community. This categorisation is misleading, and unless anyone objects I suggest removing the tag. RolandR (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is this worth mentioning? This seems like a fairly normal range of languages for a very distinguished historian to know. His knowledge of English is certainly not worth mentioning! Most academics I know have a good knowledge of Latin, Greek, English (of course), German, French, and Italian, and one or more other languages, such as Modern Greek, Russian, and Spanish as well as other ancient languages.--195.194.143.91 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If complete and accurate, this is interesting because it shows what he did not know, especially Latin, Greek, and Russian. But is it complete? Seadowns (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I assume the family fled Hitler - if so that should be mentioned. And did he really work as a tutor and au pair at the age of 12?Nitpyck (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
copied from Meta :
Dear Wikipedia,
I admire your work and would be willing to help resolve disputed issues; my expertise is in history, social sciences, and mass media.
While your statement of policy seems rather complex to me, I would simply note that the biographical sketch of Eric J. Hobsbawm is a hatchet job masquerading as a disinterested, scholarly overview. In particular, the author uses as a bludgeon the fact that Hobsbawm is a Marxist: This fact is stated at the outset, and could be seen as simply an observation. But later on, the author links Hobsbawm to Joseph Stalin – clearly, this is an attempt to warp the achievements of an historian who is widely celebrated as one of the leading intellectuals of our era. According to the reasoning of this biography's author, the work of anyone who is Catholic should be dismissed summarily – because Catholicism led to the Inquisition.
Cheap shots should have no place in Wikipedia.
Sincerely,
William S. Solomon
Agreed, one might even argue that Hobspawn is now a discredited historian. An intellectual but an unpleasant one. User talk:Kentish 18:53, 20 March 2021 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.134.204 (talk)
Unhelpful sniping from ten years ago |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The very idea of mentioning such a fool as Michael Gove in an article on one of the finest historians of our age makes my blood boil. Marxism is clearly NOT an intrinsically evil ideology as he suggests, and the day that Gove 'weeps hot tears' for the tens if not hundreds of millions of blighted, despoiled and shortened lives resulting from the ravages of his beloved free-market capitalism is the day he deserves to have a dig at Eric Hobsbawm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.42.191 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC) No more ridiculous than your opinion that Gove is a “fool” and assuming that is somehow factual. Hobspawn was an intellectual but he was also vile....in his own words, he justified the slaughter of millions in the hope that Communism would be achieved. Marxist is inherently evil. All the available historical evidence proves that. Mind how you go in a world currently polluted by Covid-19 brought to you by communist China. Keep safe. User talk: Kentish 018: 46, 20 March 2021 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.134.204 (talk) |
I have deleted the section titled 'Praise and Criticism,' for several reasons. First of all, it contained a potentially libelous statement. True the statement was referenced, but you can not get around the libel policy by merely referencing libelous statements. You must provide references to prove that the statement is not libelous, i.e., that the assertion made (in this case that Hobsbawm, a historian, knowingly falsified history) is a true statement. In the second place, the entire section seemed to be ill conceived. It was called 'praise and criticism' but the 'criticisms' were not actual criticisms of any theory or argument made by Hobsbawm. They were more like emotional outbursts of disgust and enmity. The section would have been more properly titled 'praise and blame' or 'children fighting;' such a section has no place in a quality encyclopedia. If someone desires to make the point that Hobsbawm was a controversial figure who elicited both acclamation and vituperation, fair enough. But the section I deleted did not explicitly make that point. A section on criticism ought to stand alone and not be paired with acclamations. Acclamation, in the context of criticism, becomes nothing more than an argument from authority, and the intense dislike displayed in these 'criticisms' are alike merely arguments from authority. Proper criticisms must show some short-coming of the work or character of the subject. Political views, no matter how repugnant to an individual encyclopedia author, cannot be construed as short-comings of the subject. Therefor, statements along the lines of: He is a communist, I don't like communists and He ought to "cry hot tears" for having the views he has, are not valid criticisms. I examined a number of (more than five and less than twenty) other biographies currently in wikipedia and found none containing a section anything like the section I deleted. I understand that Hobsbawm is a controversial figure, as any openly communist celebrity must be in western society. That is no excuse for posting nasty quotes against him, nor for posting wild acclamations either. I did consider attempting to edit the section, but I don't know anything about either Hobsbawm or his critics, and the edits I would have had to make would have been so extensive as to render the section meaningless. I thought the better course to be to delete it entirely.
I have forgotten my account password, so I will just sign as Jamie. 68.80.133.140 (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that an article about a celebrated historian contains so little discussion of his actual scholarship? The works section of this article reduces Hobsbawm's massive and extremely influential body of work to a few lines and a link to a dummy page on the dual revolution, and it is dwarfed by this seriously misleading praise and criticism section. The latter ignores his remarkably deep influence on the historical profession: his dual revolution thesis continues to generate debate (see the Edmund Burke article on the long nineteenth century); his social banditry book informed the Subaltern Studies school and area studies in general (see for example Ranajit Guha's works and the Donald Crummey edited collection on Banditry and Protest in Africa); and his Invention of Tradition edited collection has become a seminal work with astonishing influence (ie, we now have books called the Invention of Ethiopia). These are but three prominent examples. Yet the reader of this article learns neither of this influential scholarship nor of the critiques it has generated; instead, we read only of Hobsbawm's supposed apologies for Stalinism. (I say supposed because the Times link to the Ignatieff interview does not work.) While it is of course entirely appropriate to discuss Hobsbawm's politics, the article's current presentation reduces these to a caricature through its neglect of his own arguments and its absurd focus on the claims of some of his detractors (I am not including Tony Judt in this category). One gets the impression that Hobsbawm is not one of the twentieth century's most gifted and prolific historians but instead some kind of disingenous Soviet-era hack.
I am not a wikipedian. I do not know how to sign my name, but it is James. I am not the Jamie above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.73.77 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2011
An image used in this article, File:Hobsbawm87.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
I don't understand how a clerical error could change his surname to be different from that of his parents. If I registered the birth of my new-born child, and the clerk made an error with the surname (or any of the given names, for that matter), I'd report it and have it fixed. I would not just say "Oh well, our son now has a different surname from the rest of his entire family, and he's stuck with it and there's nothing anyone can do about it". And neither would any other parent. There has to be more to the story than a mere clerical error. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Timothy Snyder: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/01/opinion/hobsbawm-communism/index.html ColaXtra (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:FORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I haven't read more than few pages of Hobsbowm and I don't think I will after this:
It was my small contribution to the criticism included in the article that Hobsbawm "steadily corrupted knowledge into propaganda, and scorns the concept of objective truth"--Euzen (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the above link to Origin of the Albanians which proves that there is no serious bibliography claiming that we know something about prehistoric or classical "Albanians". The pseudo-information about "indigenous populations of the Balkans" is supported by this source: John Van Antwerp Fine, The early Medieval Balkans: A critical survey from the sixth century to the late twelfth century. University of Michigan Press, 1991. Actually Hobsbawm scores an auto-goal, because while he claims that nations are a modern construction, at the same time he discovers Albanians in antiquity. Also, he doesn't specify who were those "rival cultural influences". It seems that Albanians were so undecided between "rival" literate cultures, that they learned how to write only in 19th century.--Euzen (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
/ˈhɒbz.bɔːm/ or perhaps /ˈhɒbs.bɔːm/? What do you think? Listen also http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=hobsbawm&submit=Submit --Крушевљанин Иван (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have a citation of this information?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Hobsbawm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Eric Hobsbawm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eric Hobsbawm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This service is just mentioned in the lead-in, but no details are given in the article. What was it, if anything? Seadowns (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
In the first paragraph of the page, serving as a short description of Eric Hobsbawn, there is the inclusion of a personal opinion of a previous editor: "Ideologically a Marxist, his socio-political convictions influenced the character of his work, though this is true of any coherent intellectual." I believe the latter statement--implying that socio-political convictions are a general factor off 'any coherent intellectual'--is a breach of encyclopedic neutrality and dubious at best.
I'd suggest to remove it after having been checked by other wikipedians.
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.249.136 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
OK by me, and I wholly agree (and is there an echo here?) Thomas Peardew (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)