Talk:J. A. Hobson

Untitled

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)

The first paragraph is definitely copy-pasted with a few word changes. --Mrwojo 00:41 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

Major Edit

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)

Name

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)

Assess

This is a B but lacks in-line citations ... is it too late? Victuallers 11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

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)

There are several academic sources covering Hobson's antisemitism.Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Excellent work, Icewhiz. Philip Cross (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Does Philip Cross editing this article conflict with his ban on editing articles about British public figures. Just asking because it seems pretty clear he hurried to edit this article so anyone looking it up after the story about Corbyn writing a foreword about Hobson's book will see his edits. Is there another reason all these edits were made on a certain day? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:VOLUNTEER and WP:WORKINPROGRESS. In any case, we generally follow reliably published academic sources. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I saw your Google Books search. You forgot to take out the search terms you used. Just a reminder for the future. Cheers 83.218.151.178 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

I think the criticism goes way back - more than the 80s - e.g. Mitchell, Harvey. "Hobson revisited." Journal of the History of Ideas (1965): 397-416. has lots and lots of stuff on his attitude to the Jews (a major part of the text). I suspect the criticism dates back a century at least.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free (of course) to add this to my citation in the initial sentence. NBeale (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@NBeale: Per my edit summary and WP:BRD, it is you that must establish a consensus for your recent changes. It isn't for another user to establish a consensus in favour of reverting the changes you made only a few hours ago. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:45, 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)

Please see WP:RECENTISM. We should be using well established academic source, which were are. The sources added were written between 1965 and 2016 - well prior to any recent scandal. Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Mention in General Theory

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)

thrift?

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)

Antisemitism in the lead

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)

Agreed. It would be inappropriate to restructure this article around a dimension of Hobson's thought for which he is not predominantly known based on recent events. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hobson's rabid antisemitism (a language used by RSes) is clearly relevant and notable for the lede given that it is discussed in depth in several academic sources - dating 50 years - e.g. Mitchell, Harvey. "Hobson revisited." Journal of the History of Ideas (1965): 397-416. devotes a large chunk of text to Hobson's antisemitism. Hobson was, per academic sources, a rabid antisemite influential in England and on the continent, whose antisemitic diatribes had quite some impact - e.g. Hobson's anti-semitic conspiracy theories were repeated by Labour leader Keir Hardie. Regardless, on Wikipedia we follow WP:RSes (and in this case, recent news only adds weight to the multitude of academic sources - it does not detract) - which in this case cover this ugly aspect of Hobson in quite some depth. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hobson's antisemitism should be discussed in the body of the article, but such discussion should not dominate the article purely in the light of recent events. It isn't a bad thing that recent coverage has drawn attention to this particular dimension of his thought, but his influence and significance is much larger than this, as those who had heard of him before yesterday evening will be aware. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the volume of published work on J. A. Hobson, I should not have to explain why an aspect of Hobson's thought about which surprisingly little has been written (hence the absence of any discussion of it in this article before a few hours ago) should not feature in the opening line. Citing WP:RS entirely misses the point. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There is copious academic sourcing on Hobson's rabid antisemitism (again - language used in 1996 Routledge book by economics Dr. professor Cowen) well prior to yesterday. Hobson gets his own full fledged entry in Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume 1, Richard S. Levy, ABC-CLIO, page 311 - published in 2005 - Yup - a full entry in an Antisemitism encyclopedia. He's often covered in academic sources as a starting point in modern British antisemitism. The multitude of academic sources (which is what we should be using) make this WP:DUE for the lede. Recent coverage in WP:NEWSORGs only increases the DUEness here. Obfuscating the hateful antisemitic diatribes of this individual is a serious WP:NPOV issue. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is all very true, but you specifically need to justify making reference to this in a line which otherwise only describes him as "an English economist, social scientist and critic of imperialism, widely popular as a lecturer and writer", with no further reference to his views. Also, can I see some references for your claim that "He's often covered in academic sources as a starting point in modern British antisemitism". Endymion.12 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Other aspects in the lede should be expanded as well - it is too short at present. Both Hostages of Modernization: Germany - Great Britain - France, De Gruyter, chapter by Colin Holmes, 1993, pages 326-328 and Feldman, David. "Jews and the British Empire c. 1900." History Workshop Journal. Vol. 63. No. 1. Oxford University Press, 2007. begin with Hobson.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 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)

@NBeale: Once again, per WP:BRD you need to obtain consensus for the changes you have made to the article, which have been reverted by two separate users. This is pushing the limits of acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia.

@Icewhiz: I agree that the lead could be expanded, and if this is done mentioning Hobson's antisemitism would be more appropriate. The lead as it stands now for example, in spite of NBeale's failure to adhere to BRD, is more acceptable than it was a few hours ago. Can we also all please cease with the nonsense about NPOV and "suppressing" facts for "political reasons". Endymion.12 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think antisemitism should have its own subsection. And the lede could use a rather big expansion. Hobson was definitely influential in imperialism (though wrong, in retrospect on very many points (not only Jewish ones), he did instigate a movement). Instead of cutting out what is rather obviously DUE (some mention of his rabid antisemitism - particularly throughout his 1890-1902 activities (first Jewish immigrants, then South African conspiracy theories)) - how about you craft an additional paragraph? 2 short sentences here is much too short and is not a good summary of the body. Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am in no disagreement with anything written above. I am not proposing that we "cut out" any of the recent contributions on Hobson's antisemitism. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:-). I think this article (body and lede) should grow, and I'm glad we see eye to eye here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the current lede is better than what I suggested, and has about the right balance. I would have been more worried about the 2 removals if one of them hadn't been an IP-address. NBeale (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not just be honest and say you want it in the lede so it appears on Google searches? 79.66.243.247 (talk) 16:55, 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)

No that's nonsense. Please don't remove a very well documented and highly significant point unless and until you have obtained a real consensus. NBeale (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Stonewalling with a "no consensus" claim is disruptive. Hobson's antisemitism (the subject of full fledged works) is well documented and copipusly sourced. This is clearly due for the lede. We should also cover in the lede his call to genocide (well - eliminate - the word did not exist back them) the "primitive" colonial people which is also well covered.Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. User:Endymon.12 has simply reverted this from the lede again. I don't think we should claim a "call to genocide" but it is wrong to try to supress his clear antismitism in the lede. I would definitely support you if you restored it - and if Endymon.12 wants to improve the article he should find better words rather than just cutting things. NBeale (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz and NBeale: No, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD literally are policy. If there is a content dispute, it is the responsibility of the user(s) making changes to obtain consensus for these. You have between you restored this content five times against the objections of three registered users and one IP user in just over 48 hours. This actually probably is disruptive at this point. I am reverting to a stable version, and if it is restored again I'll make a post at WP:ANI so an administrator can confirm what I have just said. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I suggest that someone sets up an WP:RfC as a way of settling this. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Any policy based argument to support excluding antisemitism which is widely covered in sources on Hobson? You supported inclusion in the lead here previously. In terms of procedure - sure - you can assert STABLE - but you need to back that up with a good faithed policy based arguement based on RSes for your position. Hobson has entries in antisemitism encyclopedias. Whole journal articles have been devoted to his antisemitism..... The optics of your objection here (without any clear rationale) - counter to coverage here - do not look good at all.Icewhiz (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained above that previous versions of the lead were imbalanced, and you have acknowledged that I have attempted compromise over the lead. The scale of the imbalance is revealed by a google scholar search: for "Hobson imperialism" there are 23,700 results; for "Hobson unemployment", 19,700; for "Hobson Lenin", 12,000. For "Hobson antisemitism", there are 3,760 results. I am not obliged to exhaustively explain myself each time someone forces their own preferred version over the objections of others while a discussion is ongoing on the talk page. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You are obliged to present a rationale for your objection. Stonewalling no-consensus is not a rationale for your objection - and is disruptive. Your shoddy (in the face of actual sources - a large multitude of them) GHITS arguement actually shows this is widely discussed and lede due. If you are willing to compromise - I suggest you put forward a proposed text that you are willing to compromise on. As it stands - stonewalling and editing counter to RSes on the subject's widely discussed antisemitism - do not look good at all. I do not see an attempt at compromise (e.g. by refining the text) - I see outright removal.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Which I have done on two occasions now. "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)

Again - crying STABLE is not a discussion. Adding text as a compromise - and then changing your mind and removing it - is not productive either. Your personal beliefs here really matter little (though they may merit scrutiny at a different forum) - when they fly in the face of a multitude of in-depth sources covering Hobson's antisemitism.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 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)

@Jontel: Would you have any objections to mentioning the antisemitic content in the lead now that you have helpfully expanded the lead? Endymion.12 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Being more specific helps with a NPOV and minimizes demonization. Also, focusing on his influence, which is what matters. So, e.g. "It has been argued that Hobson's belief that Jewish financiers and mine owners influenced the British decision to fight the Second Boer War contributed to prevailing antisemitic attiudes. Jontel (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My preference would be for a more general comment (like the previous version), since the references in the relevant section attest to antisemitic themes more widespread than is implied by your suggestion above. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The section could be clearer. How about: "It has been argued that Hobson's belief that Jewish financiers exerted an undue influence over government policy, notably the British decision to fight the Second Boer War, and his concern over the impact of Jewish immigration to the UK, contributed to prevailing antisemitic attiudes. Jontel (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

How about: "More recent commentaries on Hobson have noted the presence of anti-semitic language and themes in his work. Hobson's criticism of the impact of Jewish migration from Russian Poland made reference to antisemitic tropes. Hobson also blamed the influence of "Jewish financiers" in South Africa for the Second Boer War." Endymion.12 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the original texts so do not feel I can be definite. I would say the lead should be a summary of the article, so everything in the lead should be also in the section, ideally expanded. I think the section could be improved. However, up to you. Jontel (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"more recent" is OR. Hobson has been labelled an antisemite (and compared to Nazis in one paper) from the 60s at least (I have the journal papers, some are cited here) in an academic context - and this probably dates even further back (heck - he was probably called out at the time in some circles) - unless you have a source saying recent - it is OR. The proposed text is furthermore a gross NPOV violation - it hasn't "been argued" - every mainstream source covering Hobson simply say this (using langauge such as "rabid antisemite"). Sources argue on whether a Nazi comparison is due or not - not if this antisemitic drivel is antisemitic (or anti-Jewish, or some other synonym). The proposal above lends weight to antisemitic drivel - and is highly unacceptable. We should also cover Hobson's widely covered calls for genocide (or "elimination") of "colonial people".Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the text of one of his books. https://www.marxists.org/archive/hobson/1902/imperialism/index.htm I think that the elimination might be achieved through selective reproduction. Jontel (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

How about my text with "More recent" removed? Endymion.12 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Commentaries on Hobson have noted the presence of anti-semitic language and themes in his work. Hobson's criticism of the impact of Jewish migration from Russian Poland made reference to antisemitic tropes. Hobson also blamed the influence of "Jewish financiers" in South Africa for the Second Boer War." I would oppose mentioning the "elimination" of colonial people in the lead unless there has been significant coverage of this in secondary literature. Incidentally, I believe Sidney and Beatrice Webb held similar views about the colonies, which were quite common in progressive circles in the early 20th century. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:18, 4 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)

I'd support that. Jontel (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I would support either. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Move?

Per WP:NCP, I believe this article should be moved to J. A. Hobson. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

How so? Are you claiming the WP:INITS form is more common? I think I see this more in older sources, with newer sources using John. Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is an Americanism. He was a British author, hence J A (not John A.) Hobson. -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

My general impression is that the initialism is more common. This was also suggested a few years ago. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

On Google searches, I find 113,000 for J.A., 54,000 for John A. and 22,000 for John Atkinsonson. Another source might be his book covers, which seem to go more for J.A. Jontel (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Should I open a request? Endymion.12 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that is four in favour of the change and one ambivalent, so I would say yes. Jontel (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2019

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: 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)

• Support per nomination and per sources such as this book cover. The proposed move had been raised as early as 2007 under Talk:John A. Hobson#Name, above. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.