Talk:Hannah Arendt

Which portrait?
I recently changed the lead image to this one from 1933 (left):



My argument was that this image has a clearer view of face, better lighting, etc. Overall I find this image much more striking, and the contrast is excellent. It's really a true portrait of the individual.

Francisoftheforest then reverted back to this one from 1958 (right):



Their argument was: Putting back previous infobox image: in the 1930s, Arendt was running away from the Nazis (note the look in her eyes); in the 1950s, WWII was over and her work was taking off (note her smile)

Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Generalrelative (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Given Wikipedia's concern for notability, I think its preferable that the lead image be of Arendt at the height of her literary output (i.e, during the period for which she is most noteworthy) and not a picture from her youth. It is the norm on Wikipedia for philosophers and political theorists to be depicted in maturity. 129.67.173.14 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be from the height of her output. Look at other pictures of great thinkers. Hers stands out for being too young. 209.37.78.211 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Generalrelative
 * I don't have a good reason to choose any from other, I do find they we can do better with the quality and AI enhanced versions. Colored or reconstruction. Thoughts? AR3D666 (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer the cropped version [[File:Hannah Arendt auf dem 1. Kulturkritikerkongress, Barbara Niggl Radloff, FM-2019-1-5-9-16 (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=0.6]].  JimRenge (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * AR3D666: I'm afraid that I don't quite understand the question. Which enhanced versions are you referring to? Can you show us? Generalrelative (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also vote for that one. Reading the article, and I don't know much about her except read one of her books in college, I noticed that the young picture seemed unusual. SnailsSpace (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll go ahead and change it now. Zanahary (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Ai enhanced pictures
What is the possibility to use these in Wikipedia? Like from apps like remini and recolor?? AR3D666 (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Is there a policy about it? SnailsSpace (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Views section insufficiently neutral
The sub section under "Views" titled "Accusations of Racism" contains a brief discussion of Hannah Arendt's essay Reflections on Little Rock. It seems like this section is avoiding the issue somewhat and trying to talk around the problem.

The section is on Hannah Arendt's 'views', so titling it 'Accusations of Racism' is incorrect, because it is not discussing her accusing anyone of racism, it is rather accusations against her. If this section is discussing her views, and the response of further writers to discussing and understanding those views, then it should simply be titled 'Race,' much as her writing about Feminism is simply called 'Feminism.'

It mentions her claims that the essay was delayed publication, but misquotes her as saying that it was due to 'apparently' differing from the publication's unspecified 'liberal values,' when she states it was "because of the controversial nature of my reflections which, obviously, were at variance with the magazine's stand on matters of discrimination and segregation." (Emphasis Mine). She is clear what she believes the dispute was about, and in a section about Arendt's 'views,' we should be representing her views accurately.

It also has too much sympathetic language. She is 'defending' herself rather than responding to criticism. The response is 'vehement'; meaning 'to express strong feelings,' 'to be characterized by anger,' 'marked by extreme intensity of emotions or convictions,' giving a negative impression of her critics. It also says that critics "felt she was fundamentally racist." Is that a fair representation of their arguments? That they were claiming she, personally, in her very character, was 'fundamentally racist?' Or were they arguing and disagreeing with her expressed ideas? It claims that her defenders were 'pointing out' that Arendt's concern was for the welfare of children, but this implies without evidence that her critics had ignored or forgotten that point.

Finally, the section includes a defense of her words that "She felt that white children were being thrown into a racially disharmonious "jungle" to serve a broader political strategy of forcible integration."

Despite the quotations I cannot find a source for this. Arendt expresses concern over the welfare of the children in her essay, and in the essay by Vicky Lebeau that is cited in this sentence she continues to explore this theme of Arendt's concern for child welfare, but nowhere in either Arendt or Lebeau's writings does it say that her concern was for, specifically, 'white' children being 'thrown' into a 'racially disharmonious jungle.' And I don't think I need to explain why this is insufficiently neutral.

I think the section needs some pretty major reworking. It needs to represent what Arendt's views actually were, as she herself states in her essay, rather than talking around them to focus on making her critics seem unreasonable. Vulpes Publius (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)