Talk:The Destruction of the European Jews

[Untitled]

Today, The Destruction has achieved a certain level of infamy amongst Holocaust historians. While its ideas have been modified (including by Hilberg himself) and criticized throughout four decades, few in the field dispute it being a monumental work, in both originality and scope.

Is "infamy" really the right word here? It sounds too negative given what's stated afterwards. Palmiro | Talk 12:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I meant it within the context of the work's contents and what it depicts, but you're right, it dosen't make much sense. Thanks for picking up on that. Any ideas for a better word; synonym for seminal, or something to that effect? El_C 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hilberg: intentionalist or functionalist?

The article on "The Destruction of European Jews" says it (the book) is firmly intentionalist, but the article on Hilberg lists him as a prominent functionalist. His views have evolved over the years and he combines elements of both schools, but perhaps this could be made a little clearer.FaryMark 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with the above statement. "The while firmly intententionlist" seems a bit odd or confusing. I have olny read the 2003 edition, so I can't comment on earlier versions. However, Browning considers him the father of functionalism, and notes changes Hilberg made to the 1985 edition, just as functionalism was becoming a more main stream intrepretation. RandyRP (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

30 pages is brief?

I wonder about the phrase "a brief, thirty-odd page review". There aren't many places where a thirty page review woudl qualify as "brief" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.77.212 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess it isn't really brief in the sense of 'short' but, brief compared to the volume of the reviewed material, in the sense of 'not very thorough'. 80.99.38.199 (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

Published with support?

While it is true that one of Hillberg's PhD advisors at Columbia supported his choice of dissertation topics, it would be more accurate to say, "defended" his choice. I remember reading in Michael Marrus's book that the history faculty at Columbia was dead against Hillberg's research. Talking about the Holocaust at that time was strictly taboo, since the Germans were now our allies in the war against atheistic Communism. Moreover, Hillberg was warned that if he persisted in his choice of topic, he would be finished. He would never be offered a job in academia. The difficulty he subsequently had in getting it published in book form reflects the atmosphere of the times. Mballen (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Let us include this, with RS. Zezen (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Hilberg

What this section needs: {{cot|[[Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_January_20#File:Hilberg2.jpg|discussion consolidated here]]}} Elvey, there is no reason why the article should include a picture of the author of The Destruction of the European Jews, Raul Hilberg. Hilberg's physical appearance has no relevance to understanding the book. The picture is therefore useless. Readers can look at the article about Hilberg if they happen to care what he looked like. It is up to you to suggest an actual reason why this particular article about a book should contain a picture of its author - the overwhelming majority of articles about books rightly do not include pictures of their authors. Nothing you say in this edit summary gives a valid reason for including that irrelevant picture, which manifestly does not "illustrate the topic of the article" nor is being "used for commentary on a particular topic". The non free-use rationale given ("This image is used as the primary identification of its subject, a notable individual, in the section of an article which deals with a major academic work by the individual concerned") is totally inadequate as it does not explain, "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text." Hilberg can be identified through text, as a historian, so there is no need for a non-free picture. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We disagree. I see fair use - visual identification of the person in question, at the top of the main article on his work. AGAIN: As I told you on my talk page: You need to either drop this or follow (WP:DEL, which in this case means) the WP:FFD procedure. If the FFD goes your way, fine, I'll stand corrected.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What part of, "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text" do you not understand, Elvey? The rationale given for including a picture of Hilberg in the article at File:Hilberg2.jpg is so that he can be identified ("This image is used as the primary visual identification of its subject, a notable individual, in the section of an article which deals with a major academic work by the individual concerned. No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the individual in question. As the subject of the image is deceased, use of this image for the stated purpose constitutes fair use)." If you think about it carefully, Elvey, you might realize that a picture of Hilberg is not required to properly identify him. He can be effectively identified, in writing, as what he is, namely an historian. That's precisely why most book articles do not have pictures of their authors: no "visual identification" is needed. I have no intention of dropping this matter. Stop edit warring to restore this obvious copyright violation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition, please do not remove my comments from this talk page. That's quite unacceptable. There are very few grounds on which one can remove talk page comments under the talk guidelines; none of them apply in this situation. WP:TPO: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete them; I moved the whole conversation, replied there, and left the following note, which you then deleted; in so doing you just did what you say not to do, and which I didn't do - "discussion consolidated here".--Elvey^(t•c) 08:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what word is used. You had no right under WP:TPO to remove my comments from this page. Don't do it again. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I do. In any case: You had no business, let alone right under WP:TPO to remove my "discussion consolidated here" comment from this page. Don't do it again. Sounds harsh? Yeah, well... --Elvey^(t•c) 17:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

discussion consolidated here.

Condensed quote

Hi! What's issue with the amount of space the quote takes up being reduced? It contains all the same info as before in less space. 92.10.15.173 (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's put it another way, what's the burning need to reduce the quote? Are we running put of electrons or something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already told you: it says everything that's already said, but without a long slab of vertical space taken up. Why do we need to give such space and thus prominence to a simple mistake? BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Compare with the mistake Sužiedėlis identified: 7 lines of text vs circa 30 for Friedland. It's crazy. BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)