Talk:Timothy Snyder

message: Hello, I am an intern for the New Books Network and I am currently working on a project where I link the author's interview from the New Books Network onto his/her Wiki page (if the author or their book has one).
Timothy Snyder gave an interview on March 11, 2011 on "New Books in East European Studies" (cross-posted from "New Books in History"). If you would like to add the interview to his wiki, you can find the interview here.
He also gave an interview on October 25, 2011 on "New Books in East European Studies." That interview can be found here.
Thanks, --Kristine Daggett 19:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I added a link to the interview about Bloodlands to the article about that book. Iselilja (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview Addition 

message: Also, can we get a source for the one award there. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you User:Iselilja. --Malerooster (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimmed notable awards from info box. 

message: re: JAL091 keeps making major edits; while some seem useful, he also keeps removing useful content including infoboxes and references. As such, I am reverting those changes, with no prejudice if that editor or someone else actually mergers his edits.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by JAL091 

message: If an institute with a German name like the "Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen" in Vienna also announces the official English version, it is useful 
to chose in the English wikipedia the English translation, i.e. here Institute for Human Sciences. I made that change in the article.--Stonepillar (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistics

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timothy D. Snyder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120305133627/http://www.leipzig.de/int/en/newsarchiv/2012/Ian-Kershaw-and-Timothy-Snyder-to-be-honoured-with-Leipzig-Book-Prize-for-European-Understanding-2012-21955.shtml to http://www.leipzig.de/int/en/newsarchiv/2012/Ian-Kershaw-and-Timothy-Snyder-to-be-honoured-with-Leipzig-Book-Prize-for-European-Understanding-2012-21955.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, I edited the Timothy D. Snyder page to include a mention of Grover Furr who wrote an exhaustive response to Bloodlands. In under 2 hours User:Alex Bakharev added a link to the term "revisionist" to describe Grover Furr. I have since deleted the adjective, which is a very loaded and poorly defined word to just slip in. I fear an edit war so I am bringing this to the talk page. Grover Furr's book definitely meets the standards for Wikipedia citation so I am not sure what personal opinions have to do with a mention of this major, thorough criticism of Timothy Snyder's work. Any response from User:Alex Bakharev or other users would be welcome. 24.185.84.80 (talk) 02:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It only takes a cursory look at Grover Furr's article to realize that this is a WP:FRINGE author. From Stalinist apologia to denial of the Katyn killings. In fact I take it you're the same user who was active on the Katy Massacre article , trying to do the same thing there. So, no, there is no reason to include this one particular fringe author here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have not looked at the book, you have no basis to dismiss it as "fringe." It does not make unverifiable claims and is very thoroughly cited. You would have to find a source that can DEMONSTRATE that Grover Furr is "fringe." Not just because he disagrees with your view of history. I have looked far and wide for actual refutation of Furr's work, which is quite easy to find when dealing with conspiracy theories - NOBODY has posted a single error in Furr's book, in its contents or methodology, ANYWHERE ONLINE. And I have never made another edit to another wikipedia page, thank you. 24.185.84.80 (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there's plenty in Grover Furr's article to suggest he's fringe. This has also been covered on the article on Katyn Massacre. Here is one source. And here. It's also of note that Furr is not a historian. Anyway, this is a BLP so this stuff stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Furr is an English literature expert. He doesn't have any methodology when he writes about the Soviet Union. Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9247 Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of your linked articles do what you purport: show EVIDENCE that Grover Furr has made any errors in his book. Furr clearly spells out his methodology in Blood Lies in a lengthy introduction. Your line of reasoning now has me ask: if someone found out that Grover Furr deliberately distorted evidence, wouldn't that belong in HIS "BLP?" I think you would want that in his biography, just as it should sit in Snyder's. 24.185.84.80 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Grover Furr is a literature professor who writes pro-Stalinist stuff in his free time.  He is neither a historian nor are his works published in peer-reviewed historical journals.  Thus, his claims about history or historians' works - the claims of a non-historian, published in works that are not peer-reviewed by historians ("Blood Lies" is published by Red Star Publishers)- not meet the criteria of a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, why do you get to decide who is a "historian" and "non-historian?" And actually, "The “Official” Version of the Katyn Massacre Disproven?" was published in Socialism and Democracy Volume 27, Issue 2, 2013 pp96-129, that is a respected journal covering modern history. Thanks!24.185.84.80 (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't decide who is or isn't a historian. Grover Fur does not have a degree in history, nor does he work as a historian in any academic setting.  Thus, he is not a historian.  We are discussing "Blood Lies", which is what you are trying to insert into this article against consensus.  It was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.Faustian (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: It's your task to prove that Furr is a Soviet history expert. You defend your thesis about Soviet historz in Russia or Historz faculty, not in Chemistry or Filology.Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out his website and decide for yourself: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/ He certainly speaks a lot of languages and has extensive citation in all his work!24.185.84.80 (talk) 14:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grover Furr edit 

message: The Bloodlands have  been criticised by some Holocaust writers. Snyder has published the Black Earth (which is worse than the Bloodlands).Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: Isn't this sentence ridiculous?
"Several writers criticise Bloodlands, and Black Earth."
71.73.106.200 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism" section

message: What has Michael Moore and his film "Fahrenheit 11/9" to do with Synder? It was included in the "See also" section but the article itself doesn't state any connection between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:6A:A73B:898:39A9:E9EE:9776 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section 

message: According to Rachel Maddows on Friday, September 27th, 2019:
Snyder speaks five languages and reads ten.--109.90.240.86 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: What does that mean? --Spafky (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that he holds a specially endowed chair at Yale, named in honor of former Yale president Richard C. Levin. Endowed chairs of this kind are typically considered the highest rank in American academia. Generalrelative (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The question above shows I'm not the only one who finds the phrase "the Richard C. Levin Professor of History" totally unclear. The role of an encyclopedia is to clarify things, not to make them more obscure. There must be a way to phrase it in way that explains what a "Richard C. Levin Professor" is. Otherwise readers may wonder whether Prof. Timothy Snyder and Prof. Richard C. Levin are the same person. — Kpalion(talk) 13:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you, but this really is the standard. I checked the Manual of Style talk page archives for guidance but didn't see any substantive discussion of the matter. In such a case, the suboptimal strategy of presenting other stuff will have to do: see comparable articles Samuel Moyn, Peter Gordon (historian), Stephen Kotkin, Christopher Bayly, Ian Buruma, Robert Paxton, etc., etc. Generalrelative (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The other examples are just as unclear. The article about Prof. Snyder just happens to be the first where I noticed the problem. So here's an idea: let's leave the phrasing as is, but add a footnote explaining the weird American custom of having professorial chairs named after their sponsors. — Kpalion(talk) 15:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I don't think that any native speaker of English would ever  The English Wikipedia should be accessible for as broad a readership as possible, but at the end of the day it is simply written in English. And no, this is not a practice that is limited to America, as my example of Christopher Bayly (picked essentially at random) shows. If you think that we should institute a general practice of including footnotes next to named chairs, that should be taken up at a central location, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Generalrelative (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. I'm taking the dicussion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Jane_Doe_is_a_John_Smith_Professor. — Kpalion(talk) 16:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Good luck to you. Generalrelative (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

text: This Wikipedia is not for native speakers only. India has more than 1 billion people, the majority of them not native speakers,  many use this service and publish here. Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "who is the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale University" in the introduction 

message: With all due respect for Mr. Trump, he is a former President. Putin is a President of Russia and fights a bloody war, so he deserves more place here. Snyder has cricized several politicians, we do not even list them here. Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to our policy WP:DUE. Our coverage should reflect what has received attention and commentary in reliable secondary sources, not our own sense of what "deserves" pride of place. That said, Snyder's criticisms of Putin have been discussed in numerous such sources, so if you'd like to expand on that part, please do. 17:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In another words I am right. No, I am unable to write a text about Snyder's criticisms of Putin. Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you were half right. And we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs here. Generalrelative (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

text: If anyone wants to add more to any section (and thus improve the balance), you are very welcome. There was an interesting recent interview with him recently at PBS .  I also checked a couple of critical reviews on his books like . His book was published in 2018. After the beginning of this war, he looks like a visionary, and his critics look like idiots. One of them (link above) argues: But the reason for Russian revanchism is not a single individual leader influenced by a quasi-fascist philosopher [Ilyin] from the previous century [as Snyder said]. The foreign policy of a great power is not determined by individuals but by interests. Hence, these critics say, Russia just protects its interests. Well, but how about this war when Russia became an international pariah, lost hundreds billions in trade, lost the army, etc.? If anything, it proves that Snyder was right: it is driven by quasi-fascist ideologists, and yes, maybe not just "a single leader", but a gang. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The fact that PBS's Frontline is now posting the uncut expert interviews that go into their docs is such a treasure trove. And yes, Snyder's critics do look like fools right now (at least with regard to this one aspect of his work). But of course we'll need reliable sources saying so in order to add that dimension to the article. If anyone runs into any such sources –– that is, which re-examine his critical reception in light of recent events –– feel free to suggest them here and I'll be happy to do the work of drafting some text. Generalrelative (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a general problem with citing reviews of books on many WP pages. We can include text that such and such reviewer said "..." [this]. However, consider a common situation when "this" is clearly wrong (as in this case). I would argue that including such misinformation would be a disservice for readers and be against at least WP:IAR. But having an article that criticizes a misleading review of a book?? That almost never happens. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

text: One general solution is to treat all such reviews as "opinion pieces" and avoid using them, especially if written by non-notable journalists of beginner researchers no one knows about. I would do that. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Another problem is properly summarizing views by reviewers. Consider ref currently used on the page . Author discusses the idea promoted by Snyder and others that Putin's regime should be described as fascist. Does she agree or disagree with such idea? This is not clear, but she apparently considers such idea to be reasonable (By obfuscating the broad debate on Russia, Snyder denies the need for a serious, unbiased analysis of those features of the Putin regime that could be characterized as fascist in Conclusion). It seems she criticizes only his arguments, but how?  Her own criticisms make no sense. For example, no one ever claimed that Russia’s take over of the Crimean peninsula was exactly the same as the Anschluss. This is just a historical analogy. Is she saying that all historical analogies are meaningless? Apparently no? Then she tells that Snyder accuses Putin of having justified the annexation of Crimea by reference to Germany’s “changing borders” doctrine, implying that Putin openly compared his actions to those of Nazi Germany. No, of course Putin never openly compared his own actions with actions by Hitler, and Snyder did NOT make such stupid claim, contrary to the claim by reviewer. Snyder wrote: It is with such historical references (seizing Austria and part of Czechoslovakia) in mind that we must understand Putin’s suggestion in the speech that Germany should sympathize with the doctrine of changing borders". The key word is "we", it's not that Putin openly admitted he acts just like Hitler and not that Snyder is saying this (everyone understands that Putin means the unification of East and West Germany). This is a distortion by reviewer. And so it goes. This review reads like nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with your take. I'm just a bit jaded given the way previous discussions involving Laruelle's criticism of Snyder have gone (e.g. here and here). I did have much more luck collaborating on Snyder's critical reception on the talk page for his book Bloodlands. Hopefully if a debate is necessary here it will follow the latter model. Generalrelative (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I never saw these discussions. This is a lot to digest. I will probably do something later. After quickly looking at Bloodlands, the "Reception" section seems to be hugely overblown. Some of the reviews (usually ones with direct citation provided) are interesting and tell something important and of substance. Others say nothing beyond "I like/do not like it". I can fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putin vs. Trump - proportion 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Timothy D. Snyder →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The books that Snyder has written, like Bloodlands and On Tyranny, all identify "Timothy Snyder", not "Timothy D. Snyder", as the author on their covers, and independent reliable sources (most often in the context of his books) like , , , and  all don't include the initial. "Timothy Snyder" is much more used than "Timothy D. Snyder" in Ngrams: .
This Timothy Snyder is also the primary topic (Timothy Snyder already redirects here). The only other Timothy Snyder, Timothy Law Snyder, is much less known (it has no other interwiki links, while this article has 37) and only receives about 3 to 4% of the pageviews of this article: nyder.
Finally, it's worth noting that most other languages have "Timothy Snyder" as the title: Q747312. Malerisch (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

text: *Support per OP. Looks like a no-brainer to me. Generalrelative (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

text: *Support. It makes sense to me. LynwoodF (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Support per nom, clearly the primary topic. HappyWith (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 November 2023 

message: In addition to being incorrectly set to title case and not sentence case, this section reads awkwardly in its writing style and does not seem to add much substance beyond what's already stated elsewhere. 
It also contravenes neutrality: "he cited McDaniel's role in trying to disassemble our democracy and said" (emphasis added)
I suggest reversion. 108.176.27.211 (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Views on Threats to Democracy and Pursuit of Freedom"