Talk:Eric Hobsbawm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Eric Hobsbawm is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

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!

I rereverted the change alluded to above, his belief is communism is long-documented, particularly in his auto-biography Interesting Times. Catchpole 09:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Controversy

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)

I agree, but what in this article do you describe as criticisms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wycombe (talk • contribs)


The article says: "In 1956, he spoke out against the Soviet invasion of Hungary and left the British Communist Party to join its Italian equivalent"
That´s not true. As Hobsbawm makes clear in his autobiograpgy, Interesting Times, he remained in Britain´s communist party well into the late 80s, just before the Soviet Union´s collapse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.170.2 (talk • contribs)


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

[edit] Another Controversy

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)

Added a "citation needed" tagDaniel Trielli 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Hobsbawm visited Colombia in 1963

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)

[edit] Substitute

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?

[edit] Prcye-Jones

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)

With all due respect, your opinion about the quality of David Pryce-Jones's review [1] in the The New Criterion are purely subjective, and merely to remove a link that is about Hobsbawm because you do think it is a very good review is very much of a POV edit. Pryce-Jones's review may or may not be a good review, but to remove because one person thinks it is not a very good review makes for a problematic edit. Books reviews like any other form of literature are subjective; there is no standard universal standard for what makes for a good book review. If you could offer a definition of what you consider to be a good book review (which you have not), it will still be your own personal point of view, and nothing more. Likewise, you feel that Prcye-Jones is out to lunch for criticizing Hobsbawms's anti-Zionism, but that is you have already noted, is your own opinion; please do not deny other people a chance to assess Prcye-Jones's arguements merely because you dislike them. Moreover, why is criticizing Hobsbawm for not being a fan of Israel an illegitimate criticism? Personally, I don't like Hobsbawm or his politics at all, but I don't see any reason to remove any of the pro-Hobsbawm links. Most of the links here are very pro-Hobsbawm, but given that the subject is Hobsbawm, there are very germane and relevant to the subject, and so should stay. By the same token, the anti-Hobsbawm links should be retained regardless of one's opinion about their quality or their politics.--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian Jew?

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)

In the absence of any negative comments, I have deleted this misleading category. RolandR (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Through I would agree with your statement that just being born in Egypt does not necessarily make one a member of the Egyptian Jewish community, in 1917 Egypt was a British protectorate, and was never a British colony. Having said that much, Hobsbawm grew up in Berlin and London, not Alexandria, making his background and roots Anglo-German, not Egyptian, and I agree with that you are right to remove that category, which gives an all-together false picture of Hobsbawm's roots and background.--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The distinction between "colony" and "protectorate" was more in the minds of the British occupiers than the subject peoples. The definition as a colony is not just my own quirk; it is repeated through the pages of Wikipedia. For instance, History of modern Egypt starts "The History of modern Egypt is generally accepted as beginning in 1882, when Egypt became a de facto British colony."
Thanks for concurring with my main point, though. RolandR (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)