Talk:Eric Hobsbawm

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  September 2006 messages 

message: 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)
replies: text: Added a "citation needed" tagDaniel Trielli 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eric Hobsbawm visited Colombia in 1963 

message: 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)
replies: text: With all due respect, your opinion about the quality of David Pryce-Jones's review  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)
thread_title: Prcye-Jones

message: :He speaks English, German, French, Spanish and Italian, and reads Dutch, Portuguese and Catalan.
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)
replies: text: No reason to not include such info. Kasaalan (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: 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
:It's worth reading EH's autobiography, Interesting Times written in 2002, for a nuanced view of the issue. There's no doubt he lived and died a Marxist, and he says he was a member of the Communist Party "for fifty years" from 1932. He makes no secret of this, and he describes in detail the many disadvantages his political status brought him (for example, he spent the whole of WWII as a sergeant in the army in jobs that made no use at all of his fluent German - or his intelligence).Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  note from meta IP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gove 

message: 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)
replies: text: IMHO, the reasons for deleting this section don't make sense at all. The critics stress what they perceive as major flaws in Hobsbawm's work. This hardly amounts to "children fighting". I have restored the section and, should it be deleted again, will restore it yet again until some serious reason is given. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: There is no argument whatsoever justifying the deletion of sourced and relevant information. FYI, one can be a very gifted historian/writer and a self-deluded Soviet-era stalinist. Providing quality work about one topic does not preclude one from being a disingenuous hack about another. Criticism of Hobsbawm's politics is a notable and highly relevant topic, so the section is absolutely not misleading. Removing it was vandalism. The article should indeed have more substance about Hobsbawm's scholarship and body of work. Fine, so contribute and add some.  Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise and blame 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
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.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hobsbawm87.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: I could imagine not finding it easy to push that correction through the Egyptian bureaucracy of 1917.  And perhaps they tried to have it fixed but, given that they soon left for Vienna and Berlin, had rather a hard time of it. Sumana Harihareswara 13:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Clerical error?

message: Timothy Snyder: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/01/opinion/hobsbawm-communism/index.html ColaXtra (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snyder on Hobsbawm 

message: I haven't read more than few pages of Hobsbowm and I don't think I will after this:
In his book "Nations and nationalism since 1780" (1991) he claims that the Greek fighters community of  Souliotes were "Albanians" (p. 65). This is passable, based mainly on some 19th c. western travellers for whom the Balkans of that time was a terra incognita. He doesn't provide any footnote or something supporting his claim, but still this can be acceptable. But looking in page 53 I found something really funny. He claims that he knows something about Albanians of the classical antiquity! He says "This (something about language and nationalism) may well be the case among the Albanians, living under rival cultural influences since classical antiquity, ..." (again no references). Does anyone else knows anything on the whereabouts of Albanians in classical antiquity?
Possibly Hobsbowm, publishing hastily a book a year, didn't notice in 1991 that communism in Albania is over and he wanted to offer to the national-socialistic regime of Albania a small gift.--Euzen (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Book was based on some 1985 lectures. ColaXtra (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is for the discussion of the improvement of the article, not for a general discussion of the subject. Please take it elsewhere. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually, quite a few historians have researched the Origin of the Albanians, and the generally accepted conclusion is that the modern Albanians are the descendants of the indigenous populations that lived in the Balkans in prehistoric times and in classical antiquity. Unknown peoples by the name of "Albanoi", "Arbonios" or "Arbonites" are mentioned in ancient sources. So, in the future, please look more closely into the available information on a given topic before you accuse anyone of writing propaganda. HeWsb (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historian or propagandist? 

message: /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)
thread_title:  IPA for "Hobsbawm" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111223114812/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/CompanionsofHonour.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/CompanionsofHonour.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305070326/http://www.rslit.org/content/fellows to http://www.rslit.org/content/fellows
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113011551/http://www.atlantic-books.co.uk/our_writers/browse_authors.asp?css=1&id=4454 to http://www.atlantic-books.co.uk/our_writers/browse_authors.asp?css=1&id=4454
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040302051923/http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7315 to http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7315
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925025655/http://www.davidhigham.co.uk/clients/Eric_Hobsbawm.htm to http://www.davidhigham.co.uk/clients/Eric_Hobsbawm.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040302051923/http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7315 to http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7315
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701011959/http://www.barcelonametropolis.cat/en/page.asp?id=21&ui=38 to http://www.barcelonametropolis.cat/en/page.asp?id=21&ui=38
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713193529/http://www.ncsu.edu/acontracorriente/spring_04/Slatta.pdf to http://www.ncsu.edu/acontracorriente/spring_04/Slatta.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed the (frankly rather odd) wording objected to. I'll remove the duplicate section below too. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Inclusion - Inclusion of a personal opinion