This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first paragraph of this article is uncomfortably close to this:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0823869.html
As to the rest of it, I don't know Hobson well enough to criticise the details of the content, but I also don't feel like I've learned a lot about Hobson from reading it. It seems to be about various people's views on New Imperialism (and indeed duplicates material from that much-disputed article), of whom Hobson just happens to be one. Towards the end it presents various arguments on the subject without really attributing them to anybody, and ends with a conclusion as to what the causes of New Imperialism were, which is both POV and not really the topic of the article. I feel like this was written for some purpose other than an encyclopedia article on Hobson, and it doesn't really do the job very well. -- rbrwr—Preceding undated comment added by Rbrwr ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 January 2003 (UTC)
I've just added numerous paragraphs regarding Hobson's life and work, improved the bibliography, added the source for most of the material, and improved general formatting. I decided to contribute to this article because I have recently acquired an interest in Hobson's work. Any questions or comments your free to leave on my talk page. -- Begebies 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I edited the erroneous assertion that Hobson was a Fabian, and in the process added a small paragraph that covers the inital inception of underconsumption, A.F. Mummery's contribution and the academic community's rejection of Hobson. ---- Kairoi 08:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Kairoi -- 204.52.215.95 08:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, added the full bibliography of book length works. -- Kairoi 09:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd propose moving the page to J. A. Hobson per WP:NCP - that is the name he's most commonly known by. See, for example, A. J. P. Taylor or C. S. Lewis. -- Lincolnite 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
J.A. Hobson is how I know him. Ditto on marxists.org. I support the change.-- Dylanfly 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I support moving the article to J. A. Hobson too.-- Johnbull ( talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else find the mention of Hobson's sexuality slightly odd? Especially the uncited assertion that he was 'confused' and Christianity helped him? 163.1.99.253 ( talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a B but lacks in-line citations ... is it too late? Victuallers 11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better source for accusations of anti-Semitism? The source currently there is very bad indeed- a quote from Arendt taken out of context, that includes a quote from Hobson taken out of context. Are we to assume uncritically that Hobson's use of "fangs" in a 1900 essay is indeed "Hitlerite rhetoric" and should be seen as significant? It's no falsity that a disproportionate number of financiers were Jews- there are reasons for this that don't have anything to do with anti-semitism, the fact that they couldn't own land and that other professions were declared out of bounds for Jewish people, for instance. There are historians who have laid out the idea that Jewish financiers, like Bleichroder under Bismarck, were among the more pro-Imperialist of the lot because of the anti-semitism of the societies they lived in, they had to be seen as especially supportive of their nation.
So it boils down to an anti-Imperialist likening Imperialists to vampires, sucking their target countries dry. This isn't rhetoric that he confined only to Jewish financiers, this is common anti-Imperialist rhetoric. "The Open Veins of Latin America" comes to mind as a recent example. 89.240.77.88 ( talk) 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
References
See also New Liberalism, Old Prejudices: J. A. Hobson and the "Jewish Question" John Allett Jewish Social Studies Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring, 1987), pp. 99-114 which I have added as a ref. NBeale ( talk) 14:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to point out that the material from icewhiz on anti-semitism first appeared on the morning the Corbyn controversy was whipped up by the British media. Then Philip Cross steps in ... Know thy Wikipedia. Shtove 21:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Added the fact that John A. Hobson was mentioned by Keynes in The General Theory....Please feel free to add on as this poor guy has been treated poorly by history. Recently acquired one of his books "The Evolution of Capitalism" (1894) and he was a heretic way ahead of his time. The book reads smooth and very "modern"..-- Oracleofottawa ( talk) 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Heretics are so much more interesting...-- Oracleofottawa ( talk) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Classical economics didn't/doesn't emphasize thrift, mercantilism does. Read Sir James Steuart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 ( talk) 16:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Hobson's references to Jewish immigration and role in international finance in his works are more passing comments than a major part of his work on economic theory and imperialism, which he is well known for. I suppose that many people said similar things at the time. Can I suggest that it does not belong in the lead, as not particularly relevant or notable? Jontel ( talk) 14:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"He's often covered in academic sources as a starting point in modern British antisemitism". Endymion.12 ( talk) 15:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
It's clear from the above and the sources that criticism of Hobson's anti-semitism goes back many decades. I don't think this should be suppressed for political reasons. Also removing the reference in the lede broke the link to the Allett reference in the text. We should reflect the facts, including the well-documented long-standing criticism for antisemitism. And removing it requires consensus not unilateral action please NBeale ( talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Admitting half-heartedly that the lede is imbalanced and then demanding that other editors expand it is lazy and suggests a partisan interest. What the lead was saying until just now is also blatantly untrue: if anything, Imperialism is the point where Hobson ceases his antisemitism with the exception of one slip back into his nasty old habit. FNAS ( talk) 10:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"If you are willing to compromise - I suggest you put forward a proposed text that you are willing to compromise on": This hardly stands up given that I actually wrote the text I removed earlier today. How precisely would I go about demonstrating imbalance with reference to RSes? All I have to demonstrate is that this is something that has received little attention relative to other aspects of his thought and career. As I have explained before, unless the lead and article are expanded significantly, I believe that mentioning antisemitism and "genocide" in the lead would create an imbalance. If you disagree, please obtain a consensus, perhaps through an WP:RfC. I am not commenting any further until there is more input from other users as this is currently not productive. Refusing to agree with you, and adhering to WP:STABLE, does not amount to "stonewalling". Endymion.12 ( talk) 11:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's all very well for Endymion.12 to say that Google Scholar has fewer hits for "Hobson antisemitism" than "Hobson imperialism". But conversely Google News has 21k hits for Antisemitism and only 218 for Imperialism. If you are going to remove antisemitism from the lede you might as well remove imperialism. How about "Criticism of his antisemitic views dates back to at least the 1980s and became very prominent in 2019 following objections from Danny Finkelstein. NBeale ( talk) 12:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It might be better simply to say "Commentaries on Hobson have noted the presence of anti-semitic language and themes in his work." and make sure this is properly referenced - which I *think* it is in the relevant section. These rather specific additional details don't belong in the lede but in the body of the article. And of course any specific assertion has to be properly referenced. NBeale ( talk) 13:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:NCP, I believe this article should be moved to J. A. Hobson. Endymion.12 ( talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 11:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
John A. Hobson → J. A. Hobson – Per rationale and consensus above. Endymion.12 ( talk) 10:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first paragraph of this article is uncomfortably close to this:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0823869.html
As to the rest of it, I don't know Hobson well enough to criticise the details of the content, but I also don't feel like I've learned a lot about Hobson from reading it. It seems to be about various people's views on New Imperialism (and indeed duplicates material from that much-disputed article), of whom Hobson just happens to be one. Towards the end it presents various arguments on the subject without really attributing them to anybody, and ends with a conclusion as to what the causes of New Imperialism were, which is both POV and not really the topic of the article. I feel like this was written for some purpose other than an encyclopedia article on Hobson, and it doesn't really do the job very well. -- rbrwr—Preceding undated comment added by Rbrwr ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 January 2003 (UTC)
I've just added numerous paragraphs regarding Hobson's life and work, improved the bibliography, added the source for most of the material, and improved general formatting. I decided to contribute to this article because I have recently acquired an interest in Hobson's work. Any questions or comments your free to leave on my talk page. -- Begebies 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I edited the erroneous assertion that Hobson was a Fabian, and in the process added a small paragraph that covers the inital inception of underconsumption, A.F. Mummery's contribution and the academic community's rejection of Hobson. ---- Kairoi 08:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Kairoi -- 204.52.215.95 08:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, added the full bibliography of book length works. -- Kairoi 09:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd propose moving the page to J. A. Hobson per WP:NCP - that is the name he's most commonly known by. See, for example, A. J. P. Taylor or C. S. Lewis. -- Lincolnite 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
J.A. Hobson is how I know him. Ditto on marxists.org. I support the change.-- Dylanfly 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I support moving the article to J. A. Hobson too.-- Johnbull ( talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else find the mention of Hobson's sexuality slightly odd? Especially the uncited assertion that he was 'confused' and Christianity helped him? 163.1.99.253 ( talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a B but lacks in-line citations ... is it too late? Victuallers 11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better source for accusations of anti-Semitism? The source currently there is very bad indeed- a quote from Arendt taken out of context, that includes a quote from Hobson taken out of context. Are we to assume uncritically that Hobson's use of "fangs" in a 1900 essay is indeed "Hitlerite rhetoric" and should be seen as significant? It's no falsity that a disproportionate number of financiers were Jews- there are reasons for this that don't have anything to do with anti-semitism, the fact that they couldn't own land and that other professions were declared out of bounds for Jewish people, for instance. There are historians who have laid out the idea that Jewish financiers, like Bleichroder under Bismarck, were among the more pro-Imperialist of the lot because of the anti-semitism of the societies they lived in, they had to be seen as especially supportive of their nation.
So it boils down to an anti-Imperialist likening Imperialists to vampires, sucking their target countries dry. This isn't rhetoric that he confined only to Jewish financiers, this is common anti-Imperialist rhetoric. "The Open Veins of Latin America" comes to mind as a recent example. 89.240.77.88 ( talk) 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
References
See also New Liberalism, Old Prejudices: J. A. Hobson and the "Jewish Question" John Allett Jewish Social Studies Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring, 1987), pp. 99-114 which I have added as a ref. NBeale ( talk) 14:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to point out that the material from icewhiz on anti-semitism first appeared on the morning the Corbyn controversy was whipped up by the British media. Then Philip Cross steps in ... Know thy Wikipedia. Shtove 21:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Added the fact that John A. Hobson was mentioned by Keynes in The General Theory....Please feel free to add on as this poor guy has been treated poorly by history. Recently acquired one of his books "The Evolution of Capitalism" (1894) and he was a heretic way ahead of his time. The book reads smooth and very "modern"..-- Oracleofottawa ( talk) 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Heretics are so much more interesting...-- Oracleofottawa ( talk) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Classical economics didn't/doesn't emphasize thrift, mercantilism does. Read Sir James Steuart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 ( talk) 16:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Hobson's references to Jewish immigration and role in international finance in his works are more passing comments than a major part of his work on economic theory and imperialism, which he is well known for. I suppose that many people said similar things at the time. Can I suggest that it does not belong in the lead, as not particularly relevant or notable? Jontel ( talk) 14:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"He's often covered in academic sources as a starting point in modern British antisemitism". Endymion.12 ( talk) 15:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
It's clear from the above and the sources that criticism of Hobson's anti-semitism goes back many decades. I don't think this should be suppressed for political reasons. Also removing the reference in the lede broke the link to the Allett reference in the text. We should reflect the facts, including the well-documented long-standing criticism for antisemitism. And removing it requires consensus not unilateral action please NBeale ( talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Admitting half-heartedly that the lede is imbalanced and then demanding that other editors expand it is lazy and suggests a partisan interest. What the lead was saying until just now is also blatantly untrue: if anything, Imperialism is the point where Hobson ceases his antisemitism with the exception of one slip back into his nasty old habit. FNAS ( talk) 10:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"If you are willing to compromise - I suggest you put forward a proposed text that you are willing to compromise on": This hardly stands up given that I actually wrote the text I removed earlier today. How precisely would I go about demonstrating imbalance with reference to RSes? All I have to demonstrate is that this is something that has received little attention relative to other aspects of his thought and career. As I have explained before, unless the lead and article are expanded significantly, I believe that mentioning antisemitism and "genocide" in the lead would create an imbalance. If you disagree, please obtain a consensus, perhaps through an WP:RfC. I am not commenting any further until there is more input from other users as this is currently not productive. Refusing to agree with you, and adhering to WP:STABLE, does not amount to "stonewalling". Endymion.12 ( talk) 11:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's all very well for Endymion.12 to say that Google Scholar has fewer hits for "Hobson antisemitism" than "Hobson imperialism". But conversely Google News has 21k hits for Antisemitism and only 218 for Imperialism. If you are going to remove antisemitism from the lede you might as well remove imperialism. How about "Criticism of his antisemitic views dates back to at least the 1980s and became very prominent in 2019 following objections from Danny Finkelstein. NBeale ( talk) 12:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It might be better simply to say "Commentaries on Hobson have noted the presence of anti-semitic language and themes in his work." and make sure this is properly referenced - which I *think* it is in the relevant section. These rather specific additional details don't belong in the lede but in the body of the article. And of course any specific assertion has to be properly referenced. NBeale ( talk) 13:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:NCP, I believe this article should be moved to J. A. Hobson. Endymion.12 ( talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 11:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
John A. Hobson → J. A. Hobson – Per rationale and consensus above. Endymion.12 ( talk) 10:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)