Talk:Marc Bloch/Archive 1

Murdered
Should it not be indicated that Bloch was murdered in Auschwitz due to his Jewishness 88.152.90.74 (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No because he was shot in France because he was a resistant--2514 21:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead section
This is a straw poll to determine wider consensus. POLL CLOSED

The sentence with Jewish:


 * Marc Léopold Benjamin Bloch (July 6, 1886 – June 16, 1944) was a Jewish French historian of medieval France in the period between the First and Second World Wars, and a founder of the Annales School.

The sentence without Jewish:


 * Marc Léopold Benjamin Bloch (July 6, 1886 – June 16, 1944) was a French historian of medieval France in the period between the First and Second World Wars, and a founder of the Annales School.

Vote Support to keep the mention of Jewish in the lead section in one form or another. Vote Oppose to remove mention of Jewish descent from the lead section.


 * Support. It is not uncommon to mention ethnic backgrounds of individuals in the lead section (many Jewish examples on Wikipedia). Bloch was a resistance fighters against the Nazi's, his Jewish descent is of contextual relevance. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of article contents so its not inappropriate to mention it twice. -- Stbalbach 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support See the entries of Peter Gay and others where it is mentioned. There is a third choice of adding a second sentence to the lead section that mentions, his Judaism, his work for the resistance, and his death.--Jayrav 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea, added a new sentence, copy and pasted direct from the article. Assuming it sticks this poll would be concluded. -- Stbalbach 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The current version is okay. It may be relevant to write that he was Jewish if you mention that he fought in the resistance during WWII (though Bloch is much better known for his work as a historian than for his role as a resitance fighter).--2514 07:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From the RFC. I prefer the article as it is now. To say Bloch was "a Jewish French historian" suggests there was a distinct Jewish French school of history, and might even be taken to imply that Bloch's history writing was shaped by his faith. I think that's stretching a point. However, his ethnic background was of importance to his life story, so it should be mentioned. The present version, mentioning his Jewishness in the second sentence, strikes the right balance. Fys. Ta fys aym. 12:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I concur with the previous comment. It is perfect, how it is now -- it features in the lead, but it occurs towards the end of the lead. Wbroun 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * POLL CLOSED. CONSENSUS REACHED. Edit the article or start a new poll. Thanks everyone. -- Stbalbach 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Resistance
Shouldn't there be some mention in the article about Marc Bloch's activities and involvement in the Resistance? Especially since he died partly as the result of it... It would also help to add a more complete picture to the man's life. Stevenmitchell 20:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Annales school"
There's not such "Annales school", since the magazine didn't function as a formative space nor stated any kind of guidelines. Recent historiographic trends tend to call it "The Annales movement", tough it's still not accurately enough. Anyway, just wanted to say that "school" is a big mistake.--Aruizi (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. Maybe terminology in english doesn't call it that way, but it is not that magazine is the school, the fact is that Annales school formed around magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher12 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Death of Marc Bloch
Spurred by a recent article in the NYRB, I looked up Bloch in Wikipedia, then asked a French friend about him. My friend pointed out that according to Wikipedia/English Bloch was shot by the Gestapo. Wikipedia/French says he was captured by the police, tortured by the Gestapo and shot by the Milice (a pro-Nazi French para-military force; good Wikipedia article on them). My French friend says it is an important distinction:

Le texte anglais de Wikipedia dit ‘gestapo’, le texte français dit ‘arrêté par la gestapo, et fusillé par la milice’ aux côtés de 32 résistants. Ce n’est pas la même chose. La nuance est importante.

So -- just a heads-up for those who oversee this entry.

Rev. H. Carlton Earwiggherd (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc Bloch. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909192633/http://wwwstage.valpo.edu/geomet/histphil/test/vidal.html to http://wwwstage.valpo.edu/geomet/histphil/test/vidal.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

this article is not neutral
The article reads like a hagiography. It's full of praise for Bloch and needs to be rewritten. — howcheng  {chat} 08:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * wp:NPOV rule in Wikipedia means that all serious viewpoints are represented. If there is an unrepresented viewpoint then --and only then--we have a problem. Tell us what that missing viewpoint is--cite the RS you are relying upon.  Rjensen (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming that was referring to crap like '', etc. (now removed), then it's an valid judgement. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * no that's the actual consensus of the RS. It's not wiki's job to denigrate eminent scholars.  It's Howcheng's job to tell us what RS if any he's relying upon--otherwise we have a drive-by attack based on uninformed personal dislikes. Rjensen (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly it was that paragraph that set me off. However, there are still a few places that are problematic.
 * "Bloch's own ideas on rural history were best expressed in his masterworks..."
 * "he left unfinished one of his most intimate works and a classic of historiography..."
 * When written in Wikipedia's voice, it means that we are making these judgements, when it's actually the conclusion of "eminent scholars". For example, we don't declare Michael Jordan to be the greatest basketball player ever. Instead, the article says "His biography on the NBA website states: 'By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.'" The effect may be the same, but it's a subtle difference. Also, please assume good faith. There's no need to start with the personal attacks. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * True dat. If it is 'the actual consensus of the RS', then that needs to be said in their voice not ours. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  16:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * the original allegation that "this article is not neutral" is false. There is no mystery alternative view that is unrepresented.  The RS consensus is that he is one of the greatest historians and the Wiki voice should reflect that.  as for "masterworks" it's a standard term for a person's most important works.  "classic of historiography" is the sort of thing one of the greatest historians gets credit for from RS.  the greatness is an evaluation not of his personality but his scholarship.  Hasty drive-by attacks alleging bias when the critic has spent a matter of a few minutes studying the issue which is new to him --are a bad idea and I hope they stop. Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for using the wrong maintenance template, then. Perhaps tone would have been better. Are you arguing that "one of the greatest historians of the twentieth century and a hero of the Resistance, was murdered" was a neutral statement? — howcheng  {chat} 00:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * yes the 'tone' template would be better. Yes I do argue that  "one of the greatest historians of the twentieth century and a hero of the Resistance, was murdered" was a neutral statement because it correctly reflects the RS. Neutrality in Wiki means neutral among competing RS and there is no competition or dissent about it. Rjensen (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should read WP:NPOV more closely. Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. — howcheng  {chat} 15:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Died "Saint-Didier-de-Formans, Vichy France" or died "Saint-Didier-de-Formans, France"?
Does anyone have strong feelings about the infobox having "Died ... Saint-Didier-de-Formans, Vichy France", or would "Died "Saint-Didier-de-Formans, France" be better? Batternut (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Born where?
Was he born in Strasbourg (as the intro and navbox say) or Lyon? They're 200 miles away from each other!! Blythwood (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He commuted. Changed to Lyon. Many thanks!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A quotation mark that I have added
while pinpointing the cause of that occurrence as France's own sluggish and intractable" attitude since World War I I have added a quotation mark to before "sluggish".--Adûnâi (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Past Perfect?
In 1923, Bloch attended the inaugural meeting of the International Congress on Historical Studies (ICHS) in Brussels, which was opened by Pirenne. Maybe, it should be "which had been opened"?--Adûnâi (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Edit. Is it the International Congress on Historical Studies or the International Congress of Historical Studies (see International Committee of Historical Sciences and International Academy of the History of Science)?--Adûnâi (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)