Jump to content

Talk:Elie Wiesel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Buchenwald photo and Elie Wiesel

It is claimed that he is the seventh from the left on the second row from the bottom. We need a citation for this. I believe it was Elie, the New York Times and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum that identified him in that photo, first published by the NYT on May 6 1945, with the caption, "Crowded Bunks in the Prison Camp at Buchenwald" and taken in Block #56 by private H. Miller of the Civil Affairs Branch of the U.S. Army Signal Corps on April 11, 1945, five days after the Buchenwald camp was liberated by a division of the US Third Army on April 11, 1945. None of the men in the picture were identified at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple of references from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.[1][2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
At some point, not sure when, Elie Wiesel, who was 16 years old on April 16, 1945, said that he was the face shown on the second bunk from the bottom, 7th from the left.[3]
In October 1983 (when the campaign to get Wiesel a Nobel Prize began) this picture was published in the same high circulation Sunday New York Times Magazine in an article titled “Bearing Witness: The Life and Work of Elie Wiesel,”[4] with this caption:
“On April 11, 1945, American troops liberated the concentration camp’s survivors, including Elie, who later identified himself as the man circled in the photo.”[5]
The exact “later” time has never been pinned down. Once Elie Wiesel identified himself in the famous picture, however, other decided they were in it too. Mel Mermelstein recalled how the picture was taken[6] in his book By Bread Alone, his biographical account of a legal battle with the Institute for Historical Review. He claims to be the face with eyes-only showing in the far upper right corner.
Miklos/Nikolaus Grüner has identified himself as the 16-year-old prisoner in the lower left corner. He is the only one who actually looks his age in that picture and he also resembles the man he is today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://digitalassets.ushmm.org/photoarchives/detail.aspx?id=6164
  2. ^ http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_ph.php?ModuleId=10007176&MediaId=4052
  3. ^ The highly regarded British ‘historian’ Martin Gilbert doesn’t mention Wiesel or Mermelstein as being in the picture in The Macmillan Atlas of the Holocaust, published by him in 1982. He writes of it, “The photograph, taken on the day of the liberation of Dachau, shows some of the survivors of death marches and evacuation trains …”
  4. ^ http://www.abebooks.com/Bearing-Witness-Life-Work-Elie-Wiesel/890251870/bd
  5. ^ Samuel G. Freedman, “Bearing Witness: The Life and Work of Elie Wiesel,” NYT, October 23, 1983.
  6. ^ The July 26, 1985 Billings Gazette published an Associated Press photo showing Mermelstein holding the famous photo with the caption: “Mermelstein poses with a photograph showing himself on a bunk in the Auschwitz concentration camp.”

French

The introduction, after the quote from the Norwegian Nobel Committee, says "He studied French with a tutor". Not only is this not cited, but it also makes no sense for it to go in the introduction, directly after a quote from the Norwegian Nobel Committee. This seems like a minor detail that doesn't provide significant insight on his life and achievement, which is why I do not think it belongs in the introduction. Additionally, in section 3 ("After the war"), there is a quote about his learning French, which is cited. It makes sense for this bit of information to be there, as knowing that he studied French leads us to understand that he wrote mostly in French. So, I recommend removing the sentence "He studied French with a tutor" from the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidonka181 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Elie Wiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Should recent section appear in chronological order order

Should the recent section appear in chronological order currently the order starts at 2006 and goes to 2015 then jumps back with a sub chapter dating 2007, 2012 and 2013-2014. Should these sub chapters be moved in so they are in chronological order with his recent events and should other sub chapter be created for other events in his recent events. Im new to wikipedia. Weareallspock (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elie Wiesel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

sent to crematorium?

"...He was later sent to the crematorium..."

Is this an accurate statement?

There is a widespread belief that people were killed "in ovens" but the reality is they were killed in some manner before they were cremated.

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

The controversy section should maybe contain the fact that his tattoo is missing. A French journalist also reports to have contacted the archives of Auschwitz where they say the number he claims to be his was actually someone else. Even though he may be who he claims to be, he would be appropriate to mention that fact as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:7FD:DE00:85E2:1E09:18DC:13AF (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The article fails to mention the criticism levelled at Wiesel by Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, and Israel Shamir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.42.1.166 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Are these quotes accurate?: In his autobiography, Wiesel recounts a time when, visiting Israel, he went to see the Rebbe of Wizhnitz, whose father he remembered from his childhood. At the end of the visit, which took two pages (273-75) to tell, the Rebbe questioned the writer. The conversation became more relaxed. He asked me about my work. He wanted to know if the stories I told in my books were true, had they really happened. I answered not too convincingly: “In literature, Rebbe, certain things are true though they didn’t happen, while others are not, even if they did.”

In a book first published in 1968, Legends of Our Time, Wiesel tells the story of that same visit to the rabbi this way: The Rebbe is troubled to learn that Wiesel has become a writer, and wants to know what he writes. “Stories,” Wiesel tells him, “…true stories”: 

   About people you knew? “Yes, about people I might have known.” About things that happened? “Yes, about things that happened or could have happened.” But they did not? “No, not all of them did. In fact, some were invented from almost the beginning to almost the end.” The Rebbe leaned forward as if to measure me up and said with more sorrow than anger: That means you are writing lies! I did not answer immediately. The scolded child within me had nothing to say in his defense. Yet, I had to justify myself: “Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; others are, although they never occurred.”  192.40.24.4 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Shandafurdie

Romania stollen Hungarian towns after www1? German army occupied Hungary? Hungarian deported jews unwillingly ? I bet the author is hungarian ! Sorinr (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details offhand but yes, the German Army did occupy Hungary in 1944 when the Red Army approached. Hungary was a centuries old ally of the German states against the Slavs and was an independent nation even under the Dual Monarchy. Hungary did not send Jews to concentration camps nor did they engage in pogroms against the Jews in Russia as did some other German allies: The deportation of Hungarian Jews in 1944 was solely a German operation. And yes, Romania did occupy lands in Transylvania that were historically Hungarian, still do. I am not Hungarian Missaeagle (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Temporal problem (Welles after Oprah)

"Oprah Winfrey made it a spotlight selection for her book club in 2006.[13] After its newfound popularity, Night was eventually translated into 30 languages with ten million copies sold in the United States. Film director Orson Welles wanted to make it into a feature film, but Wiesel refused, feeling that his memoir would lose its meaning if it were told without the silences in between his words.[28]"

There is a temporal problem here: "After its newfound popularity" suggests "after 2006", but Orson Welles died in 1985! That last sentence needs to be moved earlier.

 Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Light show (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing sources for the claims about Wiesel's activities in favor of the human rights of non Jews

In two sections of this page there are claims that have not been backed by any source. Could someone provide any backing for the two following claims: "In his political activities he also campaigned for victims of oppression in places like South Africa and Nicaragua and genocide in Sudan" (second paragraph) and "As a political activist, he also advocated for many causes, including Israel, the plight of Soviet and Ethiopian Jews, the victims of apartheid in South Africa, Argentina's Desaparecidos, Bosnian victims of genocide in the former Yugoslavia, Nicaragua's Miskito Indians, and the Kurds". And, concerning Israel, did Wiesel raise his voice in favor of the minorities in Israel, the Israeli Palestinians ? Wasn't he part of that group called "ELAD" whose main activity is to EXPEL Palestinians from Jerusalem in order to make it a "Jewish city" ?And of NGO MOnitor, an organization that attempts to block human rights organizations dealing with the situation of Palestinians under Israeli rule ? How does that reflect on the activities of Wiesel in favor of human rights ? Except for writing a letter signed by other Nobel Laureates, what serious fight did Wiesel ever raise ? רסטיניאק (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

He wasn't just involved with Elad, he was the chair of its governing committee. This should be mentioned in the article (with a proper source, obviously). The article severely distorts Wiesel's views in other ways too. It says, without source, that he "publicly condemned the 1915 Armenian genocide" but in fact he withdrew from a genocide conference in Israel because it refused to cancel the sessions on the Armenian genocide. One can also mention his fight to have the American Holocaust Museum not focus on non-Jewish victims (documented in Peter Novick's book and other places). He was happy to speak out against other injustices and did so often, but for him the Holocaust was a spiritual event that was unique and Jewish. Any attempt to compare the Holocaust with anything else was therefore forbidden. Zerotalk 13:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elie Wiesel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wealth of his parents and their families

The article notes that he came from a noted family, but I was wondering how wealthy they were, but the article makes no mention of this, or even of how the family made its money. Is there any information on this? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.71.21 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletions from the Talk Page

So much has been deleted, and continues to be deleted, from the Talk page of Elie Wiesel. There are a multitude of questions regarding Elie Wiesel's life during the Holocaust. I thought that the Talk page was a place to compare notes and provide draft information before editing the actual article. Yet the Talk page is fought over like it was the article for the Holocaust. Questioning Elie Wiesel's literary work and personal biography does not make a person an anti-semite or Holocaust denier. But if the preponderance of evidence eventually proves that Elie Wiesel plagiarized or manufactured his war-time biography, then the Holocaust deniers are going to pounce, as they did with Jerzy Kosiński and The Painted Bird. 192.40.24.4 (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Shandafurde

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elie Wiesel. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiesel and Palestinians

The existing article is biased and in violation of Wikipedia rules. The small addition I made is backed up by three excellent references. What's the problem?24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there any objections to adding a line about the Palestinians?24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, since the criticism comes from fringe sources. Do not edit war and add this again without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

24.189.41.10 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do you feel the NY Review of Books and the Times of Israel are fringe sources? Is the Guardian fringe too: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/12/elie-wiesel-criticism-jerusalem-residents 24.189.41.10 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
A specific group of people crtiticized him, not the media outlets that reported their criticism, so what needs to be evaluated is who the people making the criticism are, not the publications. Why don't you post the names and affiliations of the signatories of the criticsm so we can decide? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

To editor Beyond My Ken: The fact that Wiesel had a major role in Elad is well sourced and a significant part of his biography. This revert with its useless edit summary is out of line. Kindly justify yourself. Zerotalk 02:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Here is Elad's own confirmation of the information. It can be added as a second source when the information is returned. Zerotalk 02:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Find a NPOV reliable source which gives the information, the one you provided is biased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Haaretz is a major, highly reliable, Israeli newspaper. It passes WP:RS by a mile. Here is confirmation from an Israeli newspaper on the other side of the spectrum. It is easy to find many more sources but these are more than enough. Zerotalk 02:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Haaretz is a reliable source, in regard to its reporting, but what you're citing is an opinion piece in Haaretz, and therefore only as reliable as the people expressing the opinions. Get a reliable source which is reporting the information as fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I intentionally omitted the opinion of the writer regarding the facts, though that opinion would also be admissible with attribution. Attribution is not required for the pure fact, which I took pains to confirm from multiple other sources before inserting. I already gave two more sources here that can be cited in addition. Zerotalk 03:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Attribution is always required for facts when they are disputed, that's what WP:Verifiability is all about. You cannot use an opinion piece as an RS for facts, only for the opinions expressed as being the views of those expressing them. Your other citation "Israel Hoyom" is more in line with what's needed, except I have no idea if it's reliable or not. If this is such an important part of Wiesel bio, then there should be a plethora of sources -- unbiased, neutral, mainstream, reliable sources -- which report the simple facts. Why are you not presenting those? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? These are not disputed facts. Zerotalk 03:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You put something in the article, I removed it, that makes it disputed. Get a reliable source, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You disputed the edit, not the fact (and facts require citations, not attribution). But anyway, Israel Hayom is Israel's highest-circulation daily newspaper. I don't have a high personal opinion of it but there is no reason to treat it as unreliable for this. Zerotalk 03:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

To Beyond My Ken: The Times of Israel mentions Reza Aslan and Max Blumenthal and others. The Guardian mentions "100 Jewish Jerusalemites, who include academics and political activists". The NY Review of Books letter is by Arthur Hertzberg. The Counterpunch article is by Alexander Cockburn. Prominent publications find this criticism notable, why shouldn't we?24.189.41.10 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not at all. Cockburn, whose writing I enjoy, is as biased as they come, and Counterpunch is basically a propaganda rag, not in any respect a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if its true(and I am not saying it is) we should also take in consideration WP:DUE sources like Counterpunch or opinion columns are not enough.--Shrike (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy to cover up criticism. If some of my sources are left of center that does not mean they should be excluded. Opinion columns are evidence of criticism.

More criticism: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/04/elie-wiesels-moral-imagination-never-reached-palestine/ http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/denying-palestinians-their-humanity-a-response-to-elie-wiesel-by-sara-roy http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/mainstream-intolerant-palestinians/ https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.728991 24.189.41.10 (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Prominent individuals and media outlets have criticized Wiesel. I have provided numerous examples. If there are no objections I'll add my statement about Wiesel and the Palestinians.24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If there are further objections I hope people will use the talk page before deleting my additions. I will not use the Counterpunch source this time.24.189.41.10 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Elie Wiesel. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Molestation allegations

There is a clear consensus to exclude the molestation allegations against Eli Wiesel. Editors noted that the allegations were undue weight and violated WP:NOTNEWS. This can be revisited if more sources or allegations surface in the future.

Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The allegations concerning Wiesel have now been published in The Jewish Chronicle, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot, and Salon. One editor removed them on the basis of BLP arguing that BLP still applies if one has died recently. This is a misreading of WP:BLP which states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced —whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." However, a) Wiesel died over a year ago so his death cannot reasonably be called "recent" and b) the claims have now been published in several credible publications and therefore are not poorly sourced so, even if Wiesel were alive BLP would not justify removing any reference to the allegations. Nixon Now (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The question of whether Wiesel died recently enough for BLP to still apply is indeed a borderline one, but it is not the crux of the problem in this situation. Nor is the reliability of the sources reporting the allegations a problem - I agree that the Forward and the Times of Israel are reliable sources. The problem is with the truth and verifiability of the allegation itself.
Here we have an allegation of an incident which took place 28 years ago, which the supposed victim has never mentioned to anyone before, and in which the supposed victim claims to understand the inner thoughts of the person who is the alleged perpetrator. There is, at this point, almost no credibility to the allegation, which is made against someone about whom there has never even been a scintilla of any allegation of personal sexual wrong-doing. This is not a Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby situation -- at least not at this point. If this allegation were to bring out further claims, or if some supporting evidence of any kind (of which there is absolutely none at this point) were to develop, then I think we would be justified in including the current claim and any other which arose, but at this moment, with nothing except this naked, unsupported allegation of an evident almost 30 years ago, which stands alone, there is no justification for including it in the article.
Twenty-eight years ago I was working with a well-known Broadway director. Tomorrow, I could post an hysterical blog comment that accused that director of sexually abusing me, and without any supporting evidence, without my having mentioned it to anyone in the intervening years, it would have exactly the same credibility as this current allegation, which is to say none at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not our job to assess the allegation itself or determine guilt or innocence, simply to determine whether the publications we are using as sources are reliable, and these one are. Nixon Now (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Newsweek is carrying the story along with a denial from the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Nixon Now (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree. We don't determine "guilt" or "innocence", but it is very much our job to assess the verifiability of the allegation, as opposed to the verifiability of the reports of the allegation. I've already agreed that the latter is in no way problematic.
That being said, if the Wiesel Foundation is carrying a denial, then it may be sufficient to post the allegation along with the denial. I think we should have a consensus for that, though, so I'm starting an RfC on the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on including molestation allegation against Wiesel

Should the article include the unsupported allegation of sexual molestation recently levied against Elie Wiesel for an incident which supposedly took place in 1989, as long as it also includes the denial issued by the Wiesel Foundation? Or should the inclusion be held for such time, if any, that the allegation is supported by evidence or additional allegations? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • That's relevant. In terms of policy the story itself totally fails WP:V (and there is no real way to verify an alleged "ass grab" with no witnesses (per the account - no one was standing behind them) 28 years later). So what we have is a not very notable person (e.g. - no Wiki page yet) conveying her opinion on a very notable person (a Nobel laureate). Placing this in Wiesel's article based on Listman's opinion would be WP:UNDUE - an "according to Jenny Listman...." would fail inclusion here on any other type of opinion - so it should fail on this type as well.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Like Beyond My Ken, you need to read WP:V to find out what "verifiable" means in Wikipedia. Zerotalk 08:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for now. This is a hard one. First, Beyond My Ken is completely wrong that we have to be able to verify the truth of the allegation. Since any mention we will make will be to report it as an allegation, not as a true allegation, we would be in complete compliance with WP:V if we verify (via reliable sources) that the allegation was made. Overall I don't know of any Wikipedia policy that prevents us from reporting it. Still, if it was up to me to decide by myself I think I would leave it out until such time as it becomes a larger issue (for example, additional allegations, court cases, whatever). Zerotalk 05:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - passes WP:V. Nixon Now (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for now It's WP:V that an allegation was made, but we can't include every allegation ever made because BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
    • BLP stands for Biography of *Living* Persons and so doesn't apply here. Nixon Now (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @Nixon Now: Please reread WP:BLP. It also says contentious material about "recently deceased" persons should be removed immediately. There is no set definition for "recent" but I feel that an allegation made only after his death counts as contentious material regarding somebody recently deceased. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
        • You are confusing the terms "posthumous" and "recent". Nixon Now (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
          • No, I don't believe I am. His death is recent enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
            • BLP says nothing about posthumous accusations and your extension of the term "recent" to mean any time after someone has died (1 day after, 1 year after, 10 years after?) is unsupportable. The Wikipedia "recent death" tag, for instance, is removed from articles within days, even hours, of the subject's demise, it does not remain up for years or even months after the subject has died. Nixon Now (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
              • You may not "believe" you are, just like you "feel" the term recent should mean any allegation made "after his death" but unfortunately we do not rewrite definitions of established terms for opportunistic reasons and it is clear that the definition you are attempting to apply to "recent" actually is the definition for "posthumous" (ie something that happens after death) so regardless of what you would like to believe, the dictionary definition is what it is. You are entitled to argue for or against inclusion based on policy but you are not entitled to change the definitions of words to suit your argument. Nixon Now (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
                • BLP includes the term "recently deceased" and doesn't define it for cases just like this: where the deceased person cannot respond to the allegations made against them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The "recent death" tag is to identify articles that are being heavily edited because of an influx of web traffic, and is removed once editing slows down. It's not the same thing as BLP for recently deceased. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
                • Deceased people can never respond to allegations against them, nevertheless there is no bar on posthumous allegations being included in articles - indeed, that is one reason why BLP is specifically a policy on Biographies of Living Persons rather than biographies in general, it applies only to the living and imposes restrictions on those biographies that don't exist on biographies for the deceased. What you are actually arguing for is a policy change which would take the L out of BLP and make it BP (applying to all biographies of persons, living or dead). And calling a death that occurred more than a year ago "recent" is a big stretch. Nixon Now (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for now unlike Zero, I don’t think this is a hard call. Ok, so here is my 2 cents, as a female: Men who assault women normally don’t only do it once. They either do it often…..or not at all. And we have seen that, with Jimmy Savile, Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby, as soon as someone made the first allegations (for Saville the Newsnight investigation, for Cosby it was a standup comedians joke, for Weinstein that NYT article), …then it has open up a veritable floodgate of allegations. I have read the blog of ms Listman….and she has issues…(as indeed has many victims of sexual assault), however, it has only been reported in WP:RS the last couple of days. Let us wait to see if there is a floodgate....if there is no floodgate, lets forget it. Huldra (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No Despite all evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia still aspires to be an encyclopedia. One person's allegations, amplified by the tabloid press, do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Think of it this way: If you were writing a book-length biography of Wiesel, would you include last week's allegations? If not, they probably don't belong here either. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No An "unsupported allegation" from 28 years ago in a borderline BLP? No way. It's totally WP:UNDUE. I agree with Malik above, we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a gossip column that prints every salacious tidbit without worrying whether it's true or not. Jschnur (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait for now - The weight and form really hasn't become clear as yet, revisit in about a month. Actually I'd say this may be more a part of #Metoo than about Wiesel. While WP:BLP no longer applies here, there are still restraining guidance of MOS:BIO (not to lead with sex), WP:WEIGHT (how big is this in prominence compared to the rest of the article), and WP:SENSATION to handle scandal with caution. Just check back in a while. Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Include the fact that the story has been reported in the press and not just tabloids means it should be included. If it turns out to be untrue or at least the police or courts dismiss it as untrue then it should still be mentioned including the outcome (see for example the Leon Brittan case). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No - WP:NOTNEWS , WP:WEIGHT. This is an unsupported allegation, and it is an allegation form a single individual - and of a minor incident, at that. Note that the remarkable thing about "me too" has been that in one case after another, when one woman has stepped forward to make an allegation of misconduct perpetrated on her by a well-known man years ago, it has triggered another, and then another woman to go public and recount a similar incident of misconduct. They validate one another. Here, we have only one claimant. And no validation of her claim.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No as per above - We're an encyclopedia not a news site so to speak - So far there's 2 reliable sources that state this and then another 2 claiming it's bullshit - Regardless it's not worth including. (If more women come forward then we can revisit this at a later date). –Davey2010Talk 17:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • Zero0000: First, Beyond My Ken is completely wrong that we have to be able to verify the truth of the allegation. Since any mention we will make will be to report it as an allegation, not as a true allegation, we would be in complete compliance with WP:V if we verify (via reliable sources) that the allegation was made.
    Consider this: the entire basis of the BLP policy is about verification of the underlying facts, and not verification that the reports are accurate in presenting the allegation. Whether or not BLP is relevant here - I still think that Wiesel died recently enough to make it relevant, but I recognize that the counter-argument is strong as well - the fact that the WMF chose to make the verifiability of the facts the centerpiece of that very basic policy means that it's not something about which we can wave our hands and say "oh, it's out there, so we have to report it." The thing is, we are an encyclopedia, and not (for the most part) a current news outlet, so we don't have to report it just because it's "out there." We can afford to wait until the validity of the charges is established, if it ever is. A naked, unsupported, unproven allegation lacking any evidence is simply. not encyclopedic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Your understanding of policy is completely wrong. Read WP:V: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Or read WP:BLP (which doesn't apply anyway): "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source ... contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". There is nothing anywhere in policy about "verification of the underlying facts". The difference with BLP compared to general V is that we are more fussy than usual about the quality of the sources in the case of BLP. Consider that we cannot prove the truth of any of the accusations about Weinstein (last I heard he denies every one of them) yet unlike Wiesel he really is a living person. We report the accusations about Weinstein because they are reported widely in reliable sources; our opinions on whether the accusations are true or false, or plausible or implausible, are entirely irrelevant. Zerotalk 07:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Zero is 100% right. As editors, we report what reliable sources say. We need only check that the sources are reliable and that they say what our fellow editors assert they say; we are not, have never been, and never will be expected to verify that the underlying facts are true. We should remove something if it turns out to be false, but for many years, "Verifiability, not truth" was this encyclopedia's mantra. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz: I'm confused about how you harmonize what you've just said -- which I continue to disagree with as a much too superficial reading of what WP:V means -- with your !vote above. We have verifiable and reliable sources which have reported the allegation, why shouldn't they be included in the article? (To be clear, I don't think they should be, but your !vote appears to contradict your statement here, and since I know you to be a thoughtful editor, I'm wondering how that is.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
We cannot, nor should we, include every verifiable bit of information about a subject. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.... Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.") and WP:ONUS ("While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article."). If these allegations come to impact Wiesel's reputation, we would include them regardless of whether we can verify the truth of what happened 28 years ago (which we will never be able to do). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To me, it is not about verifiability. Of course the fact that allegations have been made can be verified. It's about whether this sort of unsupported allegation should be included in an encyclopaedic article. Jschnur (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (the main Jewish news wire service) is instructive. Note that the JTA initially held off publishing the story but then went ahead once Newsweek picked it up because Newsweek interviewed Listman's ex-husband who “remembers his then-girlfriend’s reaction and their conversation after” (thus providing verification that the allegation is not of recent origin but was something the victim was claiming immediately after the alleged incident) and because Newsweek obtained a response from the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Nixon Now (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Posthumous accusations are a tricky business because the accused can't respond to them. The closest thing we have is the response from the Elie Wiesel Foundation, which doesn't seem to more about the incident than we do ("At no time during his long career has anything like this ever been suggested.") FallingGravity 08:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Elie Wiesel. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies silenced

There is no section about the criticism and controversies surrounding this person. He has been criticised by many prominent figures and has made many statements that many would find - and have found - outrageous and ridiculous (stuff like a rule that Jews outside of Israel should never criticise Israel, and the argument that Jerusalem must be 'above politics' and belong to the Jews because Scripture). Most recently Max Blumenthal (https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/huge-part-elie-wiesels-legacy-being-whitewashed) brought up a lot of those things, but many others like Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn and Corey Robin have criticised him before. Normally such controversies and criticisms are included in Wikipedia articles about persons, but not here; their absence deceives the reader that they do not exist and maintains some kind of saintly aura around the subject. I see in the archives of this talk page that many of them have been mentioned and sourced here before, yet in one way or another the biased editors have managed to keep them out. Overall, the history and present state of this article are an excellent example of the way Wikipedia often simply doesn't work. --94.155.68.202 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a criticism section on the French version of this article that is detailed and reliably sourced. There is no reason why this section should be suppressed on the English version of this article. --Ice cave (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC) — Ice cave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"Suppressed"? Each Wikipedia is a separate entity, run by the people who edit there. There is no formal relationship between French Wikipedia and English Wikipedia except in that both are hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and, for legal reasons, must follow basic WMF policies. There is no requirement that any language's Wikipedia must carry any of the content of another language's Wikipedia, because their local policies and practices are different. So, nothing has been "suppressed".
If you want to translate the French Wikipedia section and post it here, it will be examined by the editors here for its compliance with English Wikipedia's rules and policies -- however, even though foreign language references are allowed, I do not recommend that you transfer the section with only Franch language refs, since it would mean that the section -- which is almost certain to be controversial -- cannot be vetted by English language editors. I would suggest that you find English-language sources to replace the French=language ones.
Also, articles translated from another Wikipedia to English Wikipedia are required, because of licensing and copyright concerns, to be labelled as having been translated. For further information, see WP:TFOLWP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, thank you for this helpful information and clarification. This was something I'd wondered about Wikipedia in different languages for some time. I'll look into the section and its sources, though I'm sure there's someone more qualified here. Ice cave (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Post-nominal

Biographical style guidelines (WP:POSTNOM) are very clear that a bio article should attach postnominals to the subject's name only if the subject is otherwise closely associated with the issuing entity (in this case, the British sovereign). Mr. Wiesel had no such association. Please take a moment to review the guidelines. Thank you. 66.87.118.54 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:POSTNOM concerns the lede section, not the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

A. Current infobox image
B. Suggested replacement

Reverting elaborately explained edits without an explanation is unhelpful. Even worse, it is rather rude. If I took the time to explain why I thought File:Elie Wiesel 1998.jpg to be superior to File:Elie Wiesel 2012 Shankbone.JPG, I believe I deserved a similar explanation from the dissenting party. This kind of summary made me wonder: "So, what is your point?" Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Rude shmude. Please explain why the only color picture of Wiesel, and the most recent, should be replaced with yet another taken at about the same time period as others already in the article. s the party wishing to make a replacement, the onus is on you to provide a coherent explanation and gather a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The article currently contains 0 photographs of Wiesel from the 1990s. In contrast, it contains three from the later half of the 2000s. The article also contains 2 other color pictures. Are we looking at the same page? There is no requirement that the infobox image should be the most recent one; MOS:LEADIMAGE stipulates it should be a representative one. I have explained why the 1998 portrait is of higher quality: it is of a higher resolution and with less things going on in the background, with the subject's face in focus. And I do not mind discussing. What I mind is having my explained edits reverted without an explanation, as if I were a common vandal. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see the edit box on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Struck the bit about the only color pic -- obviously I was completely wrong in my memory of the page. And, no, there is no requirement that the infobox image be the most recent; indeed I have argued that better images replace more recent ones. However, "better" doesn't necessarily mean "higher resolution", it means "a better portrayal of what the subject looks or looked like", and in this case, in my opinion, the current image does that job better.
Why not simply add the image you prefer to the article somewhere? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your position more clearly. I must admit I was becoming slightly annoyed by the brevity! :) Resolution is an important criterium when I judge how well an image portrays a person, but not the only one. I also expect the lead image in a biography to be from the subject's "prime" years. In this case, to be fair, that would probably be late 1980s, when he received the Nobel Prize. Our only photograph from that period, however, is rather poor. Another reason I prefer the 1998 image to the 2012 one is that the former shows a man still vigorous and smiling, the fighter we would expect to see, while the latter depicts him already rather tired. I think we can do him more justice :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, can we please use version B? It's a better image for the infobox, he looks much livelier. Sro23 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, can you really ignore Sro23's enthusiastic plea? :D Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't ignore a consensus, and when we have one, I'll go with the flow, but we're not there yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I'll summon the other top contributors to this article to weigh in. Those active in this month are SlimVirgin, Light show, Denisarona, LOL, Sluzzelin, DMacks, and Muboshgu. What say you? Surtsicna (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
That's OK with me, although I see no reason to limit it to the last month, so from here, I'm adding User:GabrielF, User:DBaba, User:Yourai, User:Khoikhoi, User:Jayjg, User:The Thing That Should Not Be, User:Chuunen Baka, User:Lawilkin2, User:Harej, User:FlakJacqueline, User:Yoninah, User:SubirGrewal, User:Rmhines, User:Wikidemon, User:Larryjhs, and User:Squiddy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought it would be a bit too unrealistic to expect a response from users who have not been active for 12 years, but I guess it does not hurt to try :D Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
(Responding to ping) I have a slight yet distinct preference for the b&w image (i.e. Elie Wiesel 1998.jpg). Greater resolution, no distracting truncated "Marriott Rewards" in the background. Clutter in the background can add to the narrative quality of a topic's image (see for example my replacing a cropped image of Harlan Ellison in this diff), but I don't see that being the case here.
Strong caveat: This is merely my untrained intuition speaking, and I have no knowledge of or experience with WP's policies on images. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
B. Color version of the photograph above.
Thank you, Sluzzelin. I think intuition is all we are asking for here. By the way, there exists a color version of the (B) image as well, if that makes any difference. I have asked the photographer if he would release that one too. Surtsicna (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd be very interested in seeing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
You can see it here. Hopefully it will soon be on the Commons as well. Surtsicna (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I like that much better than the b&w version, probably even better than the current infobox image. Maybe there's a solution in the offing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the color version in the infobox, as long as we can keep the current image somewhere in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I saw myself pinged here. I prefer the image with the red background, because it looks more like the way we remember Elie Wiesel from his later years, when he won major honors. The b/w image doesn't look like him at all... Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I like B colorized. A looks a little schlubby for my infobox tastes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Late to the discussion, but I also prefer B colorized. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Who cares how the guy looks? He looked the way he looked at any particular time in his life. Is Wikipedia some kind of PR agency for the subjects of articles now?RRskaReb talk 03:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For anyone using the admin-colorizing script, please note that despipte the similarities of the background on their sig, RRekaReb is not an admin. They refuse to change the color. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Romanian-run death camps

GPintea (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)There was never-ever such a thing as Romanian-run death camps, not in Romania-Old Kingdom, not even in recently (then) re-conquered Basarabia. That, if we apply the right definition, a death-camp = a camp designed for planned mass murder, for implementation of the Holocaust. The only camp in Basarabia, was just a prison, where Jews were imprisoned, some for purely ethnic reasons, (and that was definitely a bad thing), but not only. Some were imprisoned after being rightly or wrongly accused of having commmitted acts of violence against Romanian Army (see the shooting of soldiers en route to the front in Iasi and the blowing up of Romanian Army HQ, in Oct 22 1941 after the official capitulation, in which 68 military were killed, the majority of them high ranking officers anmong which a German general. The attack was orchestrated by NKVD who apparently planted false evidence that the responsible people for the attack were local Jews. Followed the Odessa Massacre, where Jews hostages were killed (another bad thing, but not all the hostages were Jews). Regretably people died in that Basarabia camp, innocent people too, but it never was by planned mass execution like in other dead camps, not by gas, not by shooting or other means. The greatest number of victims were after a typhus epidemics, before the dismantling of the camp in 1943, a disease for which at the time there was no cure. It was the only concentration camp in the world closed during the war. The allegation that 280 000 Jews were killed in Romanian-run death camps is completely untrue and absolutely ridiculous. At that time, there was no such number of Jews left in the whole of Basarabia, Transnistria and Odessa together. Everybody from Wiesel Commission 2003 (financed by Romanian authorities, to add insult to injury), seems to conveniently forget the Stalin's purges and deportation of the majority of local Jews, immediately after he got Bassarabia, by the infamous Ribbentrop - Molotov pact. Besides, the Holocaust, as a dramatic event, was thouroughly investigated, in minute detail, and the chance that Elie Wiesel, not a historian himself, would "discover" sixty years after the war an additional 280 000 victims and previously unrecorded Romanian-run death camps is a statistic impossibility. This was rather a personal score settling for his own suffering in Sighet, his home town, for which he blamed the Romanians all his life, oonsciously or unconsciously omitting the fact that the city was under Hungarian, not Romanian administration anymore, according to the same Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. All these infamous accusation are in fact an effect of the Holocaust Industry phenomenon, Romania being forced to pay many millions to the in "compensation", in 2004, to be admitted as a honorary member of European Community. "Compensation" for the fact that Romanian territory was a Jewish sanctuary during the war. And despite the fact that the much-demonized Antonescu regime actively saved at least 425 000 Jews, flatly refusing to surrender them to German authority to be deported and killed. Antonescu himself was subjected to humiliations, having for instance to travel to Berlin twice in one month in 1940, to explain again why the Romanian Jews could not be deported. Despite Jews having in Romania, for the whole duration of the war, political representation, continous active cultural life (Jewish schools open, Jewish-authors plays on stage all the time, Jewish businesses open), despite the Antonescu regime granting them exemption from military service and even pensions for all Jewish people that worked at least 5 years in Romania between 1919-1939, even if that person did not apply for Romanian citizenship. Despite that after losing the North Transylvania by R-M pact, Romanian cacelaries worked day and night for weeks on end, issuing blank passports, so that people from the lost territory could glue a photograph, write a name and come South to safety. Interesting also how Romanian detractors multiplied in exponential fashion after 1990-s, when there were less and less living witnesses that owed their life to the afore-mentioned acts and deeds. Proof again that truly no good action is left unpunished. Otherwise I fully subscribe to condemning the removal of the "criticism" section of this article. I do have compassion for Ellie Wiesel and his ordeal, bur nothing gives him the right of pointing an accusing finger in the wrong direction. Calling a people and a country who helped and saved "criminal", painting deliberately the white in black, is an abomination in the eyes of God ! It surprises and it pains us to see such gigantesque blunders promoted by such smart people as the Jewish people. You lose support, credibility and allies by this, Jewish brothers ! And you need them today more than anytime in the past GPintea (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, does this relate to some text in this article? Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
GPintea-You may want to present this information in an article somewhere if you haven't, though with references and in an objective manner. Would be interested to know more about those prisoners you mentioned. Were any of them Communists and/or Soviet agents? Also, I agree if part of what you're saying is that the Soviet version of anything cannot be trusted. Also, the Allies in general were eager to capitalize on anything that would show the Nazis in a more negative light. The immediate post-war era in Europe was highly charged politically. They wanted to make sure that movement was stamped out forever, and to justify their war against Germany and her allies.RRskaReb talk 03:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For anyone using the admin-colorizing script, please note that despipte the similarities of the background on their sig, RRekaReb is not an admin. They refuse to change the color. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Wall of text. Please insert paragraph breaks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

HRF

This article mentions Wiesel as a co-founder, and yet the foundation article doesn’t mention him. A trivial point, but the org seems a bit controversial in itself (to read the talk page, not always the best measure of an org, I will stipulate, and I have zero other knowledge of their record), so maybe Wiesel wouldn’t suffer much to lose that credit.

It is stated that he “actively supported HRF for his entire life,” or some such. And yet founded in 2006. I will attempt to rephrase. Ragity (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes 7 & 8 should support the “founder” allegation, but 8 only mentions him as a member/supporter. I cannot access 7 due to an overprotective browser. Maybe someone with a real computer can take a look.
I’m hoping that someone knowledgeable will have input on the Human Rights Foundation talkpage, as well as here. Ragity (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Nationality is by country of birth. Wiesel had triple citizenship: American, Israeli and Romanian after 2004. He was also a Hungarian and French citizen in the past. So I think it would be more apropiate: Romanian at Nationality and at citizenship to be: American (1955-2016), Israeli (1955-2016), Romanian (1928-1940 and 2004-2016), Hungarian (1940-1944), French (1944-1955) RAMSES$44932 (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Nationality is not the country of birth, but the actual citizenship(s), especially we identify the latest, valid (the fact the infobox has this two parameters, may be confusing, as well having an ethnicity parameter, nationality may be understood in more ways indeed). Btw., where you from have this data? (they seem accurate).(KIENGIR (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC))

You can search the references. But they will tell you this: Wiesel was born a Romanian citizen. When Transylvania became a part of Hungary, he became a Hungarian citizen. After WW2, he moved to France and became a French citizen. He moved then to the US. Due to his support for the Israeli state, he also became an Israeli citizen. In 2004, the Romanian president Ion Iliescu decorated him, gave him honorary citizenship and his own Holocaust research institute. I hope that was useful. But I still think that there must be a citizenship box. RAMSES$44932 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Most them I assumed/known especially his Romanian-Hungarian affairs. For the citizenship box you need consensus, and we should decide how to the treat the nationality parameter, which will be indeed overlapping. As well, the citizenship box should contain all citizenships, listed in acquiration order at least.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC))
Celebritynetworth is not reliable for such information. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Overcategorization - WP:NONDEF, WP:CATV, WP:CATDEF

Based on the "defining characteristics" requirement for inclusion in categories (WP:NONDEF, WP:CATV, WP:CATDEF), I propose that the following categorizations be considered for removal on account that they do not seem to be "defining characteristics" of Elie Wiesel: translator, American Jewish theologian, American religious writer (not sure about this one), American biblical scholar, Critic of the United Nations, Hasidic Judaism, and Madoff investment scandal. Some of these aren't even verified in the article (as required by WP:CATV). Yaakovaryeh (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Error in describing Wiesel's religious beliefs

In the section "United States," in a paragraph beginning "The 1979 book and play The Trial of God" includes a sentence, "Regarding his personal beliefs, Wiesel called himself an agnostic." The citation quotes a passage from his book from 2000, "And the Sea is Never Full." Upon searching the quote included in the citation, "Some of the questions: God? 'I am an agnostic.'" A search of this quote in the book reveals that the questioner is Wiesel, and the respondent is Francois Mitterand (p. 316). Wiesel is NOT the agnostic, Mitterand is.

I hope someone will edit the page, as I prefer not to try to do this.

For some reason, when I search inside "And the Sea is Never Full" on Amazon.com, I cannot find this exchange between Wiesel and Mitterand, at least not on page 316, where Amazon says it is, and the citation says it is. It is available in the original essay from 1994 that became the book chapter, "Francois Mitterand and Jewish Memory" (same title). Retrievable at (LINK TO COPYLINK VIOLATING WEBSITE REMOVED).

 Done Confirmed that Mitterand was the agnostic, not Wiesel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joodongjin87, Micaya1, Isabellewolpert, Ara.cho.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is Wiesel's name written in Hebrew and not Yiddish?

I think this gives the wrong impression that Hebrew was his mother tongue or that he wrote in Hebrew, neither of which is true. While Eliezer is, of course, originally a Hebrew name, so are many names used in English which we never give a Hebrew translation. I think it would be more fitting to put his name in Yiddish, since that was his mother tongue and the language in which he originally wrote his most famous book, Night. There is no reason to give his name in Hebrew, except that he is Jewish and he is famous as a Jew. This seems problematic at best, and certainly a line of thinking to be avoided. Dovid-salk (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a solid argument. Zerotalk 04:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Two missing things

  1. His Chairmanship of settler organization Elad. (Search "Elie Wiesel" with "Ir David" for lots of sources)
  2. His role in the design of the US Holocaust Museum should be expanded, including his battle to minimize the prominence of non-Jewish victims of the Nazis. A source based on primary documents is Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, around pages 218–219.

Zerotalk 13:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add this category ..

Category:Activists against antisemitism 2603:7000:2143:8500:E5:F906:2D8F:8D00 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elie_Wiesel/Archive_2&oldid=1231154753"