Talk:Eric Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Substantiation missing[edit]

The discount of Eric Williams' proposition needs adequate substantiation. The scholars who are able to disprove Eric Williams' claims need to put up or shut up. srr04

I was of the impression that this was the consensus view; it was taken as fact by History lecturers at the University of the West Indies (Trinidad campus) when I was an undergrad there ~15 years ago. I would like to see some of the sources so I can check them out myself. Guettarda 21:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've made edits on the scholarly section, including adding missing citations. But while I can see them when I'm logged in, I don't see them when I'm not. Can this be corrected?Mikesiva (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see them fine now. I've put in sources who, by and large, defend the Williams thesis. My history lecturers at the University of the West Indies (Jamaica campus) see the Williams thesis differently from Trinidad, it seems.Mikesiva (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm,... Good, But,... .[edit]

This is on is way to being well done, although there needs to be more stuff concerning his administration. And, in answer to Guettarda, one must be careful to any appeals to authority. Many of those who were members of the UWI were heavily involved in political activity, especially the History, Sociology and Political Science Departments (justifiable political activity, in my opinion: Brinsley Samaroo, James Millette, Derek Walcott, Suruj Rambachan, Sahadeo Basdeo, Lloyd Best Makandal Daaga, etc.)

Pan Africanist?[edit]

I removed Category:Pan-Africanism - I don't think Williams fits that description - source? Guettarda 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know most people who talk about black power are pan-Africanist especially if he is from TnT--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Power was a revolt against Williams. Guettarda 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wow i didnt know that--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric williams the Post-pan Africanist[edit]

In a sense he was a Pan Africanist, but a wayward one. He did ascribe to the principles that most Pan Africanists did: Nationalism, Internationalism, Populism,(the bandung solidatrity), the "third-way" politics, Post-colonial Liberalism and so on. However, the tricky nature of West-Indian society was to see him nearly abandoned thoses principles later in his political carrer to the end of his life. --Ishango 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I've added a link to the sections of "References" and "External Links". This is a link to the book, Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams. This is an excellent source cited by scholars over the years, and some of it can be read on Google books for freeEbanony (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Williams: Personal Life[edit]

The whole entry seems to concentrate on the political and academic aspects of his life, which is fair enough. Why, however, is there no reference to his personal life?Garstonboy (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Williams was an Anglican?[edit]

Or is this cultural assumption? A quick search reveals that his ideologies were much atheist and Marxist and not nearly as much Anglican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.151.76 (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to remove Critique OR[edit]

the critique section is pure OR, seems like one authors opinion. it should be removed or referenced in the general body of the article. It is also in a very strange place structurally--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: the criticism section is terribly flawed. It is worse than inaccurate, a large chunk of it is deliberately fabricated libel. Steelpannists had ceased being gangmembers long before DEWD was instituted. DEWD was never meant for criminals, was nevver targeted to steelpannists, and was never meant to be makework. It was an unemployment relief and public works program designed to reduce unemployment for all people while simultaneously improving the infrastructure and appearance of neighbourhoods and municipalities. Even if a beneficial side-effect was crime reduction, there is absolutely no documentation that this was a deliberate makework programme to "lure the criminals of the time away from crime". The assertion that the programme "brought community criminals in partnership with the government" is despicable and false, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Even more despicable is the accusation that DEWD was the forerunner of subsequent government-crime partnership organizations, "each [with] their associated gangs and politicization". Where is the documentation for the bald falsehood that Eric Williams's programmes have "contributed to the current culture of entitlement"? This "culture of entitlement" is purely someone's opinion. This section (including the sentence with the mispronunciation and misspelling "Marbunters") is so terribly flawed and erroneous, removal is the only remedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconWoodsman (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!: The criticism section ammounts to little more then a rant and not only becouse 90% of it is unsooursed ...but because the first half of the statements put forward can't be attributed to anyone besides the editor.

I propose storing the first half in the talk page untill the statements can at least be atatched to a third party. Right now even if I wanted to take it upon myself to go out and find the references myself I couldn't given the state of the first half.

Needs more work[edit]

I have tried to straighten out the rather confused account of EW's career at Oxford (inter alia, a previous editor seems to have assumed EW's D.Phil. degree to have been a degree in philosophy --which is no more the case than for the typical Ph.D.). I also tried to tone down a little the POV account of the appearance of "Capitalism and Slavery". Discussion of this book (and of EW's scholarly work more broadly) needs more nuance than it currently receives, and the attention of an editor who is more up-to-date than I am on the relevant scholarly literature in this field, and who is also ready and able to put aside ideological axe-grinding in pursuit of Wikipedia's NPOV standard. Nandt1 (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn due to majority opposition. George Ho (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– There are so many an Eric Williams. The prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago looks popular. However, the basketball player may also be popular. Both popular more than the writer. The stats for prime minister isn't exactly accurate, as far as I can see. Surely they must be also looking for the prime suspect of the 2013 Kaufman County murders (not popular right now), Erik Williams (American football) or the comic book supervillian Grim Reaper (real name Eric Williams). As for significance, being a prime minister of the island country... may be more prestigious and historical than being a writer, actor, or basketball player... or I'm wrong. George Ho (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which states that "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Being the "father of a country" places this subject on a higher plane in this respect than the middling notability of the rest of that group. If Wikipedia is to be respected as an encyclopedia, we can start by not disrespecting clear historical value. bd2412 T 13:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not enough of a case for clear-cut primary topic. I agree the subject with the greatest long-term significance appears to be the PM (and he ranks highly in a google books search) but to meet PRIMARYTOPIC the subject requires "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" (emphasis mine) and/or with respect to usage "much more likely than any other topic" (again, my emphasis). Over the last 90 days the former PM received 12.7k page views, but other pages on the DAB were also well-viewed (basketball player 7.4k, grim reaper 22k, defensive lineman 1k and the 12 others that seem more minor) indicating no clear primary topic. benmoore 19:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @User:Ben Moore, the problem there is that a primary topic does not require both greater historical value and more likely usage, it requires either one or the other. In this case, the primary topic issue is not based on pageviews, which are susceptible to WP:RECENTISM, but to the sheer fact of a long-serving head of state, and in fact one considered to be the father of his country, having greater historical value than the average pop culture figure or sports figure. bd2412 T 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might want to read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC again, it's not quite as clear cut as that. My point remains that I don't feel there's enough of a case for the ex-PM as primary topic. benmoore 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is another politician, Eric A. Williams. --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I am very cautious about accepting anything as a primary topic, but this example is of of Prime minister who not just a head of govt, but is also regarded as the father of his nation, and was also a noted historian. That's a substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with the title Eric Williams. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Prime Minister exceeds the threshold for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both in terms of notability and lasting historical importance. Xoloz (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Capitalism and Slavery Redirect[edit]

why was an article created for Williams book 'Capitalism and Slavery', and subsequently redirected back to this article? This would make sense if the book was not so significant or if Williams had achieved little else, and mostly of relevance to him being the author of this book. For the history of slavery and for race theory this book was of fundamental importance and deserves its own article to distinguish it from Williams' political activities.158.223.168.132 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eric Williams/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have changed the assessment from Mid to High as per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Caribbean/Assessment. Guettarda 06:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Abhinav Nambiar[edit]

In the infobox listing Williams' personal information his name is given as Abhinav Nambiar. This name does not appear anywhere else on the page, or indeed on Wikipedia at all as far as I can tell. Is there any reason for Williams being so-called or is this someone's joke? CharlesMartel (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)CharlesMartel[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Williams. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Williams&oldid=1217113923"