This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The introduction to this article describes Wiesel's writing as "powerful and poetic" - is this an objective statement? While it may be true, where is it coming from? Forgive me, I'm new at this, but shouldn't there be a citation - ie, "so-and-so has described Elie Wiesel's work as powerful and poetic", or shouldn't it be taken out? Cdawg116 ( talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that by restoring the criticism section of Elie Wiesel, I may have inadvertently endorsed the view that the Holocaust was somehow a myth. I just want to make it clear that this was ABSOLUTELY NOT MY INTENT. My intent was to simply restore what I saw as straw man rhetoric back to critics like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein in their own words. As can be found out from the page history, THAT original section was contributed by Bogdangiusca. --issident|Dissident]] ( Talk) 23:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Are you serious, really?
Do we need to include this paragraph if Tom Sawyer does think so? Certainly not. Because it's totally groundless. However, IMHO, Chomsky's criticism is not without a point. If the IDF does cause excess innocent Palestinian civilian deaths, why can't we criticize Elie Wiesel over his silence? After all, he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He's supposed to stand out to say something if his some of people is now doing something horrible.
-- Toytoy
I agree. I put in a small mention of Wiesel's "zionism," but I don't have enough information right now (other than some of Finkelstein's writing) to add a section to this article. However, the fact that Wiesel is a supporter of Israel, which is explicitly a racial state (it's illegal for anyone in the Israeli govt. to deny that Israel is a state for "the Jewish people," according to the same law that "forbids" racism.) and, in recent policies, quite similar to Nazi germany (the deportation of palestinian spouses, breaking up families in the name of "jewish identity" etc.) while he should, of all people, oppose it, is very much worth noting. He's held up in most schools in the US as a great human rights activist (Night is required reading), so these contradictions should be pointed out. He's not an angel.
Atomsprengja 00:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to critise Israeli policy without this lable? It seems like a very cheap shot to call anyone who you disagree with an anit-semite. If you disagree, argue the point, don't name call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.29.1 ( talk) 00:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I am moving the section on the Kosinski Hoax here. Given the total length of the article I don't think this subject warrants more than a couple of sentences, what was written seems like a rant written by someone who cares about Wiesel only because he is somehow related to this kosinski guy. It is very badly written and although I don't know anything about the content, it seems very POV. The article it links to has been marked for POV GabrielF 00:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Completely biased, added by dimwitted Slavic editor
Cautious (198.82.71.55
from hist) (added author ip/struckout Cautious: …
Guy M… (
soapbox))
The editor that added the last comment, please sign it by your name. I added rephrased version to the main article. Cautious 00:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I removed the bit about Noam Chomsky because I can't find a citation for it anywhere and, frankly, it doesn't sound like something he would say. I replaced it with a cited bit from Norman Finkelstein. If someone can track down and verify the source, please feel free to put it back. AaronSw 08:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the paragraph about Noam Chomsky's criticism was deleted? Bogdan | Talk 11:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've reworked the criticism section. I know that some of these changes may be controversial so I'd like to explain them one by one. 1. In the previous version the first paragraph began by talking about criticism of Wiesel over Israel and then led into Finkelstein's criticisms, I've separated these into two paragraphs so that it is organized a little better. 2. I removed the specific charge of "$25,000 and a limo" per lecture. I asked my Dad, who has arranged for Wiesel to speak on a number of occasions what Wiesel charges (without mentioning Finkelstein) and he quoted a figure thats a fraction of Finkelstein's claim with fees varying for the type of institution that asks Wiesel to speak (a college vs. a fund-raising organization). He hadn't heard a request for a limo. He also mentioned that Wiesel is part of a speakers bureau which sets up his events and also sets the fee and collects a substantial portion of the proceeds. This means that even if Wiesel wanted to set a fee of $1 a speech he couldn't unless he handled all the logistics himself. Since Finkelsteins figure is at best misleading, and since I'm not about to use my Dad as a source in wikipedia to counter Finkelstein's claim it seems best to simply say that Finkelstein thinks that Wiesel is charging excessive fees for speaking and is turning his solemn work into a business. 3. I wanted to put Finkelstein's claims in context by adding the NYTimes review. This review represents the reaction of the "mainstream" Jewish community (as Finkelstein says, the rest of the mainstream media pretty much ignored his book) so I don't think its way out there. I think its important to present the fact that Finkelstein's claim is not a majority opinion but the observation of a lone activist which has drawn a great deal of criticism. I might have preferred to use Wiesel's words but I could not find a reference to Finkelstein in his memoirs or "Conversations with Elie Wiesel."
Clearly I have a strong POV here, but having put considerable effort into this article I'd like it to be as NPOV as possible. I hope that I've done a good job representing Finkelstein's POV and I hope that the criticism section has an overall neutral tone. GabrielF 01:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
User:Pyrop removed the allegation that Elie Wiesel used to work for Irgun on the ground that "how could he be in France and Israel at the same time?" I think this removal is not well-researched. If that argument is valid, then how could anyone not located in Langley, Virginia be a CIA agent?
Elie Wiesel's Irgun connection has been raised multiple times in the past. For example, in a letter published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, it says:
You cannot disprove it with something like "how could he be in France and Israel at the same time?" -- Toytoy 16:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
There seemed to be a lot missing from the Life in the United States section. I added some info on his academic career and political advocacy, but I think there's still more to do. 68.125.62.126 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. There should definitely be a mention of Wiesel's visit to the White House in the '80s when he begged Reagan not to visit the military cemetery at Bitburg, West Germany. -- Micahbrwn 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for this?
I went ahead and removed the sentence "He was the first to use the term "Holocaust" from the 1st paragraph. " Since it's definitely not true that he was the first to use the term (see Holocaust). It is possible that Wiesel was the first to use the term to refer to the Nazi genocide, but I haven't been able to find a source for that. 68.127.109.54 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I remembered reading something about this in Wiesenthal's second memoir And the Sea is Never Full, however the text is actually inconclusive -
My reading of this is that Wiesel was one of the first but that he cannot prove that others didn't coin the term independently. I recommend that we say "Some historians credit Wiesel with giving the term 'Holocaust' its present meaning, but he does not feel that the word adequately describes the event and wishes it was used less frequently to describe less significant occurrences such as everyday tragedies."
GabrielF 23:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
That seems like a lot of detail about a relatively minor point for the opening paragraph. Maybe we can find somewhere else to mention it? Otherwise I'd suggest we just leave it out -- I think it's really interesting, but maybe not appropriate in a short discussion of his life and contributions. 68.127.109.54 00:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Does any know what his connection was to Schindler's list? I couldn't find anything in the entry for the movie or on IMDB.
I've been using Amazon's Search Inside a Book feature on Wiesel's two memoirs (All Rivers Run to the Sea and And the Sea is Never Full) in research for this article. I'd recommend it to everyone editing this article. Wiesel doesn't mention Schindler's List in his memoirs, thats not conclusive of course, but I also couldn't find a connection between the two using google either. I suspect someone added the link to Schindler's List as a general reference to the Holocaust. It should probably be deleted pending further research. GabrielF 00:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can protect this page? The vandalism is frequent, and quite shocking. Gareth E Kegg 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
"After the war, Wiesel was placed in a French orphanage where he started stealing valuable items from other inmates and gradually was transformed into the heinous criminal and con-artist of today. In 1948, Wiesel began studying philosophy at the Sorbonne but he was caught cheating and was expelled from the University. He taught Hebrew and worked as a choirmaster before becoming a professional gangster. As a journalist he wrote for Israeli and French newspapers, including Tsion in Kamf (in Yiddish) and the French newspaper, L'arche. However, for eleven years after the war, Wiesel refused to write about or discuss his experiences during the Holocaust. Like many survivors, Wiesel could not find the words to describe his experiences. However, a meeting with François Mauriac, the 1952 Nobel Laureate in Literature, who eventually became Wiesel's close friend, persuaded him to write about his Holocaust experiences."
I've remove~d the entire paragraph, expecting to someone to fix it properly. It's outrageous how people can do this to Wikipedia. Wintceas 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Will someone please edit the section about "The Trial of God." (All the way at the bottom of the page) It seems to have been vandalized. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereotonic24 ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving this to the talk page because I don't believe its entirely true, even if it is, it needs to be sourced and put in a section other than criticism. GabrielF 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
True. Wiesel and his Foundation have pushed for the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Redman5578 ( talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the reference to Night being a novella should be removed. A novella is by definition fiction, and it is evident from all the press the new translation is receiving that this is not a work of fiction.
---
Personally, I see a novella as being a book which is shorter than a normal novel, but longer than a short story. His novella was not very long, but still long enough to not be a short story. I dont think that whether its fiction or not has anything to do with it. Besides, many novels are fiction, in fact, most are.
--- Correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 ( talk) 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I did a little to add to an article that made little sense. Much more work needed here.....DW
The caption under the photograph is wrong. Elie Wiesel is eighth in the photograph, starting from the left. The photo lists him as being Seventh. You can compare the eyes in the photo to the photo of him as a young man. They are clearly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 ( talk) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Gabbi is the best
Can someone with the proper privileges change the caption on the main photo of him? The wording is really awkward.
-Yes, I'd like to add to that, concerning this caption (it may be different from the one mentioned): "Buchenwald, 1945. Wiesel is on the second row from the bottom, seventh from the Calvin." What is a Calvin? I'm not aware of its meaning here, and only found in wiktionary:
"a surname of French and Spanish origin, meaning a bald person"
Still doesn't make sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuenglander ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The external link entitled "1945 Buchenwald photograph from USHMM" is broken. Ian Glenn 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Without intending in the least to diminish the stature of Wiesel, the category "Biblical scholars" doesn't fit him. He is surely richly familiar with the Bible, and is acknowledged as a scholar, but his relation to the field of biblical scholarship is tangential. Wikipedia risks misleading a casual reader to idenityf him as a "biblical scholar." Akma 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Can the lead line about Wiesel be improved to conform to more "standard" biograpgical usage? It sounded like he is a Jewish novelist, not the clearest verbage. Backroomlaptop 05:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Beganlocal ( talk) 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I read the book "Night" and his father was refered to as "Chlomo". I realize that Shlomo is probably intended to be the Americanized version, but should I change it to "Chlomo"? KSava 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Chlomo is the french spelling for Shlomo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.94.51 ( talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does it say that his father's name is "Sholomo"? There is no such Hebrew or Hungarian name. It should be "Shlomo" or in Hungarian "Slomó". —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.0.231.142 (
talk)
21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a part saying that he traveled to Auschwitz with Oprah, please add when he did so, etc. KSava 20:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The book he wrote- night, was so chilling, I read it in only a few days and it was a quicker read, but no the less as chilling. The saddest part was when Elie and his father pulled into the first of many constration -(spelled wrong)- camps and he decribed the smell of people, of flesh burning, (accualy) (sp) the smell of burning human hair. Another really sad part was when Moshe the beedgle(?)(correct me if i'm wrong) was telling Elie about how some Nazi were throwing babies in the air and using them for target practice. It was an extremly well written account. And if someone wanted to read this book, they should definitely spend a long time reading it, let it sink in as you go. Stop before each chapter and reflect on what you had just read. (That would be the best advice to you, from me who just read it.) Laurathebora23
Why should anyone be interested in the lies of a professional Liar? Yeah of course, babies as target practice. You believe just anything do you?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.92.172 ( talk • contribs) .
Yea how could anyone believe such lies? Of course, The nazi's killed Jews and conquered most of Europe, you believe in anything don't you? Is that what you mean?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you know that he is lying? Do you have true, believeable proof that he is lying? Really, a website, or book, or even examples? And-- How would you know? Laurathebora23 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The only reson I restrained myself from deleting the two insulting, bigoted, and ignorant comments above was so that viewers of this site could see exactly why the work of Mr. Wiesel and other humanitarians like him will never be done. I cannot help it if you hold hateful and uninformed beliefs, but I must ask you not to foul this site's more intelligent critism with them. You are probably very angry as you read this, but I ask you to restrain yourselves from writing replies, just as I restrained myself from deleting your comments. May this embarassing exchange end here! Person who likes to think 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, like now for replying, but I truly would like to see some proof of where they get their opinions from. Laurathebora23 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't refering to you, Laurathebora23.
The best proof that Elie is a liar is the fact that he, an eye witness, contradicts the orthodox Holocaust story - therefore he is a Holocaust denier and a liar. He even fails to mention the gas chambers in his book Night - a charlatan is the best you can say about him.
Maybe the reason that he didn't add any details about the gas chambers is because he didn;t want to have that be his main focus in the book, if you have read it, and will think back, then you will remeber that he talks frequently about the crematorie. Perhaps that was a single point that he wanted to convey to his many reader.
Laurathebora23
18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Very sorry about the confusion - I thought Night was a historical book, wiki says it was published as a novel. In a novel I guess you can elaborate or leave out anything you want. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
If you weren't so ignorant, you would realize that someone who went through something like that wouldn't need to elaborate.
Kforcrazy
23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)KforCrazy
Man i wish we didnt have to resort to namecalling here. things like calling others "ignorant" and "charlatan" really adds nothing to an arguement. please guys, lets agree to disagree. there will always be disagreements about the holocaust, anything where that many people are involved in such a tragic manner will always be very contentious. lets leave it where it is before anyone gets really upset about it all, please. ~~
Since the book NIGHT carries several clear hoaxes a link to Alex Cockburn's exposure of these fallacies should be included in the article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04012006.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced criticism from the intro per WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced? Ok, maybe having just one source isn't enough to qualify as being sourced, and I'll admit, it was a pretty shaky source. I'll add some more and put it back. If there's another problem, then we can fix it and everything will be great all the better for it.
Atomsprengja 06:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please provide a source for the paragraph on criticism from Romanian intellectuals? Additionally the criticism needs to have some sort of context (what exactly did Wiesel say, when did he say it, etc.) and be more NPOV. If nobody will source this it should be deleted per WP:BLP. GabrielF 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This article needs more information about Wiesel's work in religion. In one of my college classes we watched a video where Wiesel was giving a deep commentary on the first 3 chapters in Genesis, and some of the books in our list of books are obviously about the bible, so obviously he has done a lot of work in this area. In our class we also had a discussion about how he became an atheist during World War II and then eventually became more connected to Jewish faith. Can anyone add more information about this? Academic Challenger 03:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Some anon keeps changing his date of birth. If people want to do this they're going to have to cite reliable sources. Britannica apparently says it was September 30, 1928. If there are other sources, we can have a footnote. — Khoi khoi 03:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This should be added under criticism: http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml Wiesel seems to be one of those many Holocaust survival miracles.
www.ihr.org/ - 68k - Cached - Similar pages 71.63.15.156 ( talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
IHR is not a credible source due to their agenda and organizational links. Redman5578 ( talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
"IHR is not a credible source due to their agenda and organizational links."
This could be more easily said about Elie Wiesel himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In Red Week a Romanian writer acuse Wiesel of telling lies on a French tv station. He said that in 1944 he and his family were arested by Romanian Police. And that is a big lie because at that time NV of Transilvania was under Hungarian control: see Viena Diktat!
What about this? i cant find that in the article: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."
-Elie Wiesel, Legends of Our Time, p.142
Shouldn't that be Romanian-Hungarian-French-American-Israeli Jewish? :) Of course he was born in Romania and had some degree of Hungarian descent (and was a subject of this country during the Holocaust), but he is much more than that. Dpotop 14:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
About all that, what is his native language and what languages does he currently speak? I see he is an american citizen so English. He wrote in Un di Velt Hot Geshvign in Yiddish. He learned Hebrew and he's from Romania, so Romanian. But he was hungarian and Sighet was annexed to Hungary so hungarian. He was learned french after the war so French. So would it be English, Yiddish, Romanian, Hebrew, Hungarian and French? It's quite confusing, so can anyone clear it up? -- Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński |talk to me| |what i've done| |e| 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sighet was annexed to hungary in 1940 and was set free in 1944. So I don't thinks it makes any difference. What matters is that wiesel was hungarian, jewish-hungarian (living in Romania). -- Eres 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the lead per
WP:MOSBIO and other examples. I xplain my edits:
What do you think of this explanation? Dpotop 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should we assume he spoke Hungarian? john k 17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
John K, If you knew and understood Hungarians, whether they be in Hungary proper or in Transilvania, you wouldn't ask such a silly question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.29.39 ( talk) 09:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In Hungary, Wiesel is universally regarded a Hungarian Nobel laureate (that is, not Hungarian-Romanian, not Hungarian-Jewish, simply Hungarian). See, e.g, here: The 12 Hungarian Nobel prize winners. 62.112.210.136 ( talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out the absurdity of including criticism by Finkelstein. A good analogy would be that one included "Heinrich Himmler criticized Wiesel for being alive." Okay, so what? Finkelstein is among the least reputable reactionaries in America, and I just don't see how his views could be relevant to this article. - Anon, April 17, 2010
In addition to the lead change detailed above, I also added sources for 2 items in the "Critic" section. The two items were deleted by someone a while ago as unsourced. However, the sources were one click away and quite reputable (by Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, respectively), even if not quite mainstream. :) Dpotop 12:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
How, exactly, is his name pronounced? I've only ever seen it written down. Thank you very much, 82.27.28.115 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
the W is pronounced like a V, actually 132.170.34.216 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The phonetic transcription of "Wiesel" is incorrect. The vowel in the second syllable should not be a schwa but rather an epsilon, as in the transcription of "Eli." 76.173.64.255 ( talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The entire criticism section was removed, due to lack of sources, and lack of neutrality. The "windbag" quote was uncalled for. Name-calling does not belong in any encyclopedia. The Chomsky and Finkelstein passages were saved below if you're interested. -Rich 68.239.48.188 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
(removed from Criticism):
Noam Chomsky also noted Wiesel's moral response to the
Sabra and Shatila massacre with the following remarks:
Wiesel's position was that "I don't think we should even comment on [the massacre in the refugee camps] since the [Israeli judicial] investigation is still on." "We should not pass judgement until the investigation takes place." Nevertheless, he did feel "sadness," for the first time, he explains; nothing that had happened before in the occupied territories or in Lebanon had evoked any sadness on his part, and now the sadness was "with Israel, and not against Israel" - surely not "with the Palestinians" who had been massacred or with the remnants who had escaped. Furthermore, Wiesel continues, "after all the Israeli soldiers did not kill" - this time at least; they had often killed at Sabra and Shatilla in the preceding weeks, arousing no "sadness" on Wiesel's part, even "sadness with Israel". Therefore, Israel is basically exempt from criticism, as were the Czar and his officials, military forces and police at the time of the Kishinev massacre, by his exalted standards. [1]
In a radio interview scholar Norman Finkelstein accused Wiesel of cheapening the moral coinage of the Nazi Holocaust by asserting its uniqueness while profiting from public fascination with it:
Elie Wiesel is always wheeled out, and with his long face and anguished heart and cinematic eyes, he always says: "Oh, do not compare." I beg your pardon, I think you should compare. Otherwise, if you don't want to compare, what's the point of it? What are you going to learn from it? ... He says the only thing we can do before the Nazi Holocaust is silence. Well if silence is the only answer, why are you charging $25,000 a lecture? And what are you going to learn from silence? I mean, this is sheer nonsense. [2]
"
The removal of the criticism section was inappropriate because (a) the section adhered to Wikipedia's standards and (b) the rationale furnished for its removal did not even make sense. To wit:
'The entire criticism section was removed, due to lack of sources, and lack of neutrality.'
In point of fact:
(1) all three passages cited were cited with sources; and
(2) If all criticism needed to be 'neutral' before being deemed acceptable, then it would scarcely be criticism.
(3) The remover failed to even to define 'neutral'.
Please do not attempt to insulate Mr. Wiesel from criticism: otherwise his Wikipedia entry will degrade into little more than a politically 'cleansed' hagiography.
(Happy to discuss with anyone who disagrees.)
I found Elie Wiesel listed as a vegetarian in several sites (for example here), but didn't find any reliable source that says so. Can someone help? Thanks. -- Gabi S. ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
A relatively obscure activist writing a letter to the editor is not notable. The criticism section is not supposed to be laundry list of everyone who dislikes Wiesel. Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, although misguided, are well known figures and have published their views in books and the media.
If you want, you can place this citation on McGowan's own wikipedia page (since that page is solely about him). But it does not belong here.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC))
Corrected number of pages listed for "Un di velt" and cited reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.117.248 ( talk) 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the criticism section has what I believe you would call "undue weight". I have enjoyed being a regular reader of Wiki for some time but have not contributed much. I can't compete with your "weasel words", "original research", "3 revert rules", "NPOV", and "edit wars" etc' etc'.... but I do know that this article makes a man whom most agree is worthy of great respect sound questionable at best. I did try to remove the section a week or two ago in the hope that somebody better suited than me would write a more balanced criticism section,(if indeed one is needed at all; couldn't any relevent criticism be spread throughout the article?), but no one was given the chance as within moments it had been reverted and I was accused of carrying out some kind of "test" (?), and that I should be careful removing anything. Okay then. I took that in Good Faith, and I will leave the thing alone, but I would like to suggest that somebody who knows how to improve this without getting administrators on their case, could perhaps have a go at it. If not, then who am I to criticise? After all, I don't know a 3RR from a POV. 212.84.124.97 ( talk) 00:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't care for being called a sock puppet, which I am not, when all I am trying to do is post information on an academic dispute that is relevant to the article. Redman5578 ( talk) 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No, Long time reader first time editor (hence my ref link troubles with the article ;-) ). Redman5578 ( talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
To head off any edit wars, would "Dispute with" be a fair way of headlining Wiesel's critics? Please advise. Redman5578 ( talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently there have been new reports about Elie Wiesel in the Hungarian press which might be worth including a reference to. I don't consider myself professionally qualified as a translator, but if someone else is up to the job then they could better evaluate it. The articles appear here:
http://www.haon.hu/hirek/magyarorszag/cikk/meg-mindig-kiserti-a-halaltabor/cn/haon-news-FCUWeb-20090303-0604233755 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.134 ( talk) 13:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
My wife, fluent in Hungarian thinks this report linked above should certainly not be dismissed but investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.29.39 ( talk) 10:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As a native Hungarian, I made and hereby I give you the translation of the linked report. The report appeared on HAON aka Hajdú Online which is the central news portal of Hajdú-Bihar county in Hungary. The raw translation is as follows (maintaining formattings of the original):
(end of translation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.10.140 ( talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
For further important readings about the reports above and to read its detailed analysis, see: http://thoughts-in-english.blogspot.com/2009/07/holocaust-business.html (Be aware that it is NOT a Holocaust denial page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.10.140 ( talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Poor Elie, he lost his faith to Hitler and his savings to Madoff. Is this not worthy of mention in this article? 98.201.123.22 ( talk) 16:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What is this section doing in an encyclopaedia? It reads like an essay by a third-rate first-year university student. I propose it gets removed rather than improved, as it adds nothing to the page but a load of subjective opinion. Melaena ( talk) 23:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed several supposed "criticisms" [5] of Wiesel on WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP grounds. Another editor has reverted, [6] and I have redone my deletions.
I'll add that the remaining so-called criticism suffers the same problem as the others - it is unsourced and partisan, with no support of relevance or weight. It claims that Noam Chomsky criticizes Wiesel for supporting Israel, and is cited only to Chomsky's book and a citation so garbled I cannote tell what it is, apparently an interview of Chomsky. That is of course an WP:OR summary of Chomsky's opinion. Even if sourced, Chomsky is (apart from his highly respected work on linguistics) an out of the mainstream commentator, with an opinion on every possible far-left subject. That he criticizes Wiesel simply for being pro-Israel seems utterly unremarkable. One would need strong sourcing to show why Chomsky's opinion has any illustrative value or made any difference in Wiesel's life.
The whole notion of a criticism section is problematic, and goes against the usual norm per WP:CRIT. It is not our job here on Wikipedia to tell someone's life story then make a run-down of all his detractors. There has to be some reason and context of why any particular incidence is worth noting, and that is better worked into the overall narrative than presented as a list of negative items that easily becomes a WP:POV WP:COATRACK. It is almost embarrassing that a Wikipedia article describes the life of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, then devotes a section to others taking potshots at him. The one controversy that seems notable (I cannot tell if it is because the source is not online) is the mention that he and Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal are rivals who had a series of run-ins. That, at least, says something interesting about Wiesel's career and might actually have affected it.
- Wikidemon ( talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so your opinion on the subject is worth more than Chomsky's or Finkelstein's? If you're prepared to include the plaudits, what's wrong with including some criticism? If there is compelling evidence of Wiesel taking a mercenary approach to the issue, I think it's only fair to allow readers to assess this information for themselves. The article should not be a hagiography. Melaena ( talk) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The way you're defining NPOV and reliable sources is not accurate. To use Finkelstein as an example, the facts that a)he was denied tenure and b) he was banned from Israel and has had run-ins with pro-Israeli authors, have no bearing on whether he is a reliable source or whether inclusion of his research complies with NPOV.
He was denied tenure not because his work lacked accuracy - there was no question of this, and DePaul actualy praised his scholarship when denying tenure - rather because DePaul felt his style of argument was not sufficiently 'Vincentian'. I repeat, nothing to do with accuracy.
I'll ignore the leap in logic that makes his run-ins with the Israeli government and pro-Israeli scholars proof of an anti-Israeli bias, and the subsequent leap that makes this 'fact' relevant, and focus on NPOV itself. NPOV does not preclude the inclusion of 'biased' views - neither you nor I have any real authority to decide whether views are biased - rather, the aim of NPOV is to ensure a balance of conflicting views within an article. In removing all criticism of Mr Wiesel, you are violating this concept.
The article doesn't necessarily need a criticism section, but it is ridiculous to systematically remove criticism with such tenuous reasoning. Melaena ( talk) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, you seem to be missing the point. The fact that someone is 'biased' against the person in question is not sufficient reason to exclude their opinion. The line (or circle) of argument reminds me of Kafka: Wiesel has downplayed other genocides and made a lot of money from the Holocaust. Finkelstein is biased against Wiesel because he doesn't like the fact that Wiesel has downplayed other genocides and made a lot of money from the Holocaust. Finkelstein's assertions that Wiesel has downplayed other genocides and made a lot of money from the Holocaust are unreliable because Finkelstein is biased against Wiesel.
This isn't just about subjective opinions, it's about demonstrable facts. Finkelstein may have some very objectionable opinions, but judging from what you've written on the subject, you've removed opinions that are based on solid facts. If you like, I'll provide full references for Finkelstein's statements on Wiesel's self-enrichment and his uses of authority to downplay the Armenian genocide as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus the (less biased?) sources used by Finkelstein to boot.
Regarding weight, the argument that the combined opinions of Finkelstein, Hitchens, Chomsky, and many others merit not a single representation in an article of this size is indefensible, the notion that facts presented by them are also worthless, even more so. Melaena ( talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Read again - not worthless, but indefensible. I've read through your original post, and while I agree with your view of the self-published author, I believe your line on the rest of the criticism is rather suspect, and I've noticed I'm not alone. Nobody's asking that the criticisms be presented as irrefutable truths. The problem is that you refuse to allow the article to acknowledge that criticisms from well-respected authors exist. As another editor has already suggested: 'you don't have to agree with him, just summarize their views neutrally, fairly, and accurately', and in the words of NPOV, 'the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view'.
You reject mention of a Hitchens piece on the grounds that the Nation is a leftist publication. Again, if it was presented as a fact, I'd understand this reasoning, but it is presented as an opinion, and is not a fringe publication. Should views expressed in the Guardian be rejected on the same token?
I will draw in Hitchens' and Finkelstein's criticisms, appropriately framed and sourced, in due course, unless you have any further objections. Melaena ( talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK - Starting with Finkelstein, I suggest that the part of 'Life in the United States' that discusses his involvement in various political causes should include a mention of his role as chair of the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide in Tel Aviv. Finkelstein states that Wiesel withdrew 'because the academic sponsors, against Israeli government urging, included sessions on the Armenian case, [...] sought, unilaterally, to abort the conference, and, according to Yehuda Bauer, personally lobbied others not to attend.'
This is from The Holocaust Industry, 2nd ed., and Finkelstein's sources are 'The Book of the International Conference...' and Israel Amrani's article 'A Little Help for Friends' in Haaretz.
I think a description of his political activities should include his objections as well as his advocacies. If not in the Life in the US section, perhaps the information could be inserted later on the the article, to contextualize his recent condemnation of Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide. Melaena ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
I'm deeply surprised to find no criticism section in this article. I've read and understand Wikidemon's argument as to why such a section should not be included, but find it unconvincing. A criticism section is common on Wikipedia; prominent academics, activists, and politicians often if not always have sections detailing the criticism of their work. Wiesel's status as a Nobel Laureate, Holocaust survivor, or activist for peace does not insulate him from criticism. Ultimately, if someone as prominent as Chomsky or Finkelstein have leveled a reasoned criticism of Wiesel, I see no viable explanation above as to why it cannot be included. They are both well known and respected authors, and including their views does not endorse them. Criticism should be re-added immediately. I'll wait for consensus before doing so. Dpetley ( talk) 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This piece by David O'Connell should be referenced in a criticism section somewhere. He raises well-founded questions about François Mauriac as probably the real author of NIGHT:
http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Weisel.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.157 ( talk) 13:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I say keep the criticism section. Wikidemon's distinction between Wiesel and writers/philosophers etc doesn't hold water, and even if it did, the idea that this is a reason for not including a criticism section is completely arbitrary. Good work Dpetley or whoever wrote it. Melaena ( talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section lacking a citation - about a statement supposedly made in a book by Miklos Grüner - due to its verifiability issue. If a source can be cited regarding the book and the supposed claim, please restore information about it and write from a NPOV. Yourai ( talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Wikidemon is alone in opposing a criticism section. It is currently very short but Wiesel is a controversial figure, with Chomsky and Finkelstein being the most authoritative sources of criticism. Items that might be covered are uncritical support for Israel and silence over Palestine, attitude to the Armenian genocide and support for wars against Serbia and Iraq. I am strongly in favour of expanding it, but I'm too inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia to attempt it myself. Channelwatcher ( talk) 22:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this quote, mentioned by another poster earlier, should be included somewhere:
"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."
E. Wiesel, Legends of Our Time, Schocken Books, New York, (1982), p. 142.
It is widely cited, usually critically and sits ill with his "ambassador for peace" image. I can't vouch for the source, I copied it, but it should be easy enough to check. Channelwatcher ( talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Wiesel's (shameful, imnsho) active, long term opposition to commemoration of the Roma holocaust alongside the Jewish one? They weren't able to resolve the matter until he stepped down from the museum board.
~~ AbuKedem ~~
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AbuKedem ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources I think you should add something. There seems to be a policy of avoiding including evidence of Wiesel's more questionable activities in this article. Melaena ( talk) 15:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on the following, I removed the description of Night as an autobiography.
Hope my reasons are acceptable. ZScarpia ( talk) 22:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A human rights activist must always be a human rights activist. They can't be a human rights activist some of the time, while giving certain human rights violators a free pass. This is the ultimate hypocrisy. Any group that is the victim of a genocide does not get to form a state, align itself with a major power bloc, arm itself as well as a major superpower, and then get a "get away with genocide free card" to commit grave human rights violations on another group. Imagine if every victim of a genocide did this? The whole world would be blind. 76.180.61.194 ( talk) 21:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
So says you, but this isn't a place for opinion, but for facts and encyclopedic content. Extrabatteries ( talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
1. None of the given sources say that Eric Hunt "tried to drag Wiesel into a hotel room". Neither do most other news articles referring to the case that I could find. What they say is that Hunt dragged Wiesel out of the elevator. I did come across an
article ("Holocaust scholar testifies about hotel attack", written by Terence Chea, a journalist with the Associated Press) which says, describing the incident in more detail: Hunt demanded that Wiesel come to his hotel room for an interview; when he refused, Hunt grabbed his arm and pulled him out of the elevator onto the sixth floor. Note that it says that Hunt wanted Wiesel to go to Hunt's room, but it doesn't say that Hunt tried to drag him there, only that he pulled him out of the elevator by his arm.
2. The 17 February 2007 Yahoo! News article,
"N.J. man arrested in attack on Wiesel" (which is currently number 23 in the list of sources) is no longer accessible and so cannot be used for verification of the material supposedly based on it.
3. Although the Eric Hunt
blog clearly shows, assuming that it is actually written by Eric Hunt, that he is a Holocaust denier, it cannot be given as a source for the last sentence in the section, where it is stated that "he continues to maintain and update a blog which denies the Holocaust and is critical of prominent Jewish people." To use it in that way is original research.
4. I think that the length of the section in relation to the rest of the article gives the incident undue weight.
--
ZScarpia (
talk)
14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Wiesel's postwar "journalism," as the main page innocuously calls it, was for the Irgun. [1]
Irgun was a terror organization founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who Primo Levi among others, notes was a fascist and called himself a fascist. [2] Irgun is famously known for its commission (along with the Stern Gang) of the massacre of the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.16.44 ( talk) 09:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikidemon removed my posting about the historicity of Wiesel's claims concerning the non-reference to Jerusalem in the Kuran. I have in fact cited an excellent, scholarly secondary source (the 3rd edition of the Enclyclopedia of Islam) to correct Wiesel's contentious statement, and subsequently restored the passage in a more neutral fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryjhs ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Are Richard Silversteen and Max Blumenthal considered reliable sources? Also at least one section seems poorly written, as the John Hagee segment does not mention references for the controversy. Drsmoo ( talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Silverstein is a widely read Jewish blogger/commentator who blogs on [ Tikkun Olam]. Max Blumental is a well-known online journalist with a detailed Max Blumenthal entry in Wikipedia. The information for the donations by Hagee and associates are both on Bluementhal's site and a suppporter's blog, cited in the entry. I have also added the press reslease from Christians United for Israel, whose founded and national chair is Hagee. Larryjhs ( talk) 05:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I found a For Jerusalem: Answer to Elie Wiesel response here to Wiesel's claims regarding Jerusalem and Islam.
Would it be good to mention it, especially with regards to his views on the Qur'an not mentioning Jerusalem? Why or why not?
Bless sins ( talk) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added, I think it is in note 46, a long quotation from the Encyclopedia of Islam which is the pre-eminent authoritative scholarly resource, and such can be found in Wikpedia entry. It deals well with Wiesel's literalism--that 'Jerusalem' as a noun is not mentioned, but there are other indications, as the quote from the Encyclopedia shows, that it was referred to and alluded to in other ways- it helps to know a little Hebrew and Arabic--but I hope you can trust this source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryjhs ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
New to editing, so sorry for any unforeseen improprieties. The article says "On January 29, 1945, just a few weeks after the two were marched to Buchenwald, Wiesel's father was shot by a Nazi as he was suffering from dysentery, starvation, and exhaustion." This is sourced to a movie. Elie Wiesel's own book on the matter, "Night," at the end of chapter 8, says "The officer dealt him a violent blow on the head with his truncheon." Also, this blow happened on the 28th, not the 29th. Mr. Wiesel then woke up on the 29th in the bunk above his father to find that his father was taken sometime during the night and carried to the crematory, possibly still alive.
In the same section, there is a requested citation for Mr. Wiesel's ID tattoo. Elie Wiesel wrote about this in "Night," near the end of chapter 3. Tried adding a source directly to the article, but it didn't stick for some reason.
Mattchuuu ( talk) 07:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Wiesel or Wiesenhtal who claimed that Christopher Columbus was a converso?
What language does Elie Wiesel write in: French, Yiddish? Somehow seems not to be an insignificant question and ought to be answered early on. StevenTorrey ( talk) 15:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Controversy over historical and religious rights to Jerusalem. The last paragraph seems to be an inference or judgment, not clear fact. Who says that Wiesel's view is inconsistent or in contrast to Muslim interpretations? I think a better source is needed. Regards Nutty Professor ( talk) 14:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a growing underground movement that claims that Elie Wiesel was never in any concentration camp and does not have a tattoo on his left arm as claimed. (In other words, he assumed some one elses identity at the end of the war.) These sources are highly suspect, of course, but their sheer volume of documentation suggests the subject might warrant a sentence mentioning the suspicion. They further claim that Wiesel will not permit his left forearm to be viewed. (Shades of the Kurt Waldheim affair!) Tholzel ( talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hearing no objections from the other editors, I added the above note to the article, but it mysteriously disappeared! I don't understand--The only (mildly) negative mention and it is secretly removed? Tholzel ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I see. So the one thing we won't do is provide readers with any facts that diverge one iota from this hagiography of a living person. Too "controversial.” Of course, I understand. And no matter how well documented these rumors might be, we do not want to offend our readers with any jarring contrary opinions. Thus, I will specifically not say that some might mistake this for simple censorship, no matter how much that might appear to be the case. Tholzel ( talk) 01:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have seen a recent resurgence of websites alleging that Weisel has no concentration camp tattoo, that the number he alleges actually belonged to a relative, etc. Evidently there is no photo on the internet of a tattoo on Weisel, and one (grainy and indistinct) photo of his left sleeve rolled up that does not show a tattoo. I would VERY MUCH like someone to address this matter in a straightforward way. Sussmanbern ( talk) 22:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. How does someone born in Romania end up being described a "French-Jewish novelist" and included in the infobox for Hungarian American.
How the hell is he considered an "American" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.7.85 ( talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How the "hell" is he American?? Ummm...Perhaps having been a citizen for fifty-five years. That may just have something to do with it. Was that a serious question?? ( 24.62.126.170 ( talk) 06:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
Currently, the second lead paragraph of the article consists wholly of a single sentence. It's too long, especially since there are multiple quotes encased within. Perhaps the sentence can be broken down into two or more sentences, or rephrased. ANGCHENRUI Talk ♨ 10:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot ( talk) 13:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a newspaper article which reports the testimony of a 100% verifiable holocaust survivor, Miklos Gruner, that Elie Wiesel was not the same person as the Lazar Weisel he knew in Auschwitz and Buchenwald, that he is a younger impostor who assumed Lazar's identity in order to tell the story related in "Night".
Gruner, who knew Lazar in the camp, related that Lazar spoke fluent Yiddish, was 10 years older than Elie, and didn't look much like Elie. Elie does not speak Yiddish, refuses to show his tattoo claiming "modesty", and is notoriously unreliable regarding camp details.
Lazar is certainly the author of the earlier Yiddish prototype for "Night". Considering Elie's overwrought and christian-pandering writing, the factual errors about Auschwitz and Buchenwald, his relentless shameless profiteering, and his lack of Yiddish skills, there's no reason to suspect that Gruner is lying.
A Hungarian newspaper is a reliable source last I checked, and if the notability isn't self-evident, the many links are evidence. 38.96.141.82 ( talk) 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think that he doesn't speak Yiddish? I see no reason to believe he doesn't when there is plenty of evidence stating otherwise. For instance, he spent a few years translating a newspaper from Hebrew to Yiddish. Here's my source for that: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Wiesel.html
Also, someone probably would have gotten him on copyright laws if he stole this guys work and called it his own. Besides, just because this one guy says he never saw Elie, doesn't mean he was never there. They could have been on opposite sides of the camp for all we know, and they don't know everyone by name. 76.19.155.77 ( talk) 01:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Elie Wiesel World.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
Can someone add info about the of his Peace Nobel prize in the info? Just add:
| awards =
Nobel Prize in Peace
1986
It should be noted that Elie Wiesel has never ublicly shown anyone the tattoo on his arm. Also, the controversy that has grown from that fact by people that are weary of his credibility is worth mentioning. I understand, however, that a large portion of the population that doubts him may be antisemitic. But that fact alone should not be the reason for refusing to include this information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.156.73 ( talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I recently changed the List of Works section to a Bibliography section (as I have produced a separate Elie Wiesel bibliography article), and in it, I linked to the new article using information from the original chapter. I later noticed that there is already a Bibliography section which is a mixture of works by Elie Wiesel and works about him by other authors. The works in that list by Elie Wiesel are already listed in the Elie Wiesel bibliography. Following the style of the William Faulkner article, I am going to change the second Bibliography section (list of works about Elie Wiesel) title to "References." This second Bibliography section (now "References") appears to have had some citation issues since 2009 that could use some attention. Yourai ( talk) 13:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Wiesel was awarded the Wallenberg Medal and Lecture from the University of Michigan in 1990. http://wallenberg.umich.edu/wiesel.html
Kitty4777 ( talk) 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 141.211.39.55 ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
The_Trial_of_God has an article that should be linked to in the "See Also" section. 75.119.244.23 ( talk) 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Some information stating Elie Wiesel is NOT the Lazar Wiesel shown in the Buchenwald, 1945 photo. Anyone to contradict such statements?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=thvoxnTNssM www DOT elie wiesel tattoo DOT com (URL blocked by wikipedia as "spam" ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.21.35 ( talk) 10:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Some information stating Elie Wiesel is NOT the Lazar Wiesel shown in the Buchenwald, 1945 photo. Anyone to contradict such statements?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=thvoxnTNssM www DOT elie wiesel tattoo DOT com (URL blocked by wikipedia as "spam" ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.21.35 ( talk) 10:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the article be amended with a section indicating the claim of Jewish camp survivor Miklos Gruner, that Elie Wiesel is a fake. http://www.haon.hu/hirek/magyarorszag/cikk/meg-mindig-kiserti-a-halaltabor/cn/haon-news-FCUWeb-20090303-0604233755 Acorn897 ( talk) 15:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
that clearly isnt Wiesel in the photo.
Shouldn't that say Romanian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 ( talk) 05:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually he came from Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acorn897 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
You got a couple days to add it, or I do. 68.115.53.79 ( talk) 15:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have removed an edit concerning the hungarian surname by 84.1.207.210 (His other contributions were removed by other people)
This is a complex issue since :
- I do not know what is the hungarian version of Eliezer but :
- Lazar (name) is not the same surname than Eliezer (not same biblical origin, not same meaning)
- Why should the hungarian (?) version be mentioned without source (??) anyway.
- The town of Sighet where he was born has changed from Hungary to Romania several times (but was romanian when Elie Wiesel was born) and its name changed also several times.
- Lazar is the surname under which Elie Wiesel (registration number A-7713) was filed at Auschwitz. Along with a clearly wrong birthdate. But with his birthplace written indeed in hungarian : Máramarossziget
- There is a controversy because of that filing. Google for "Stolen Identity Gruner Miklos".
Therefore, the issue has to be handled with great care.
Azeturf ( talk) 18:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The body article states that the subject was born in Transylvania, then a principality of Hungary, but the introduction states he was born in Romania. This is an anachronism. I will correct this, and would appreciate any comments here. Leegee23 ( talk) 16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Transylvania was NOT a principality of Hungary in 1928. At the time it was part of Romania (since Dec 1918). Actually, for most of its even medieval history, Transylvania, although ruled by Hungarian families, was an independent state. Maintaining its independence even during the ottoman occupation of Hungary after the battle of Mohacs (1526) and its transformation in "pashalic", (ottoman province).
On a different topic, I do remember reading a "criticism" paragraph of this article in 2011, disappeared ever since. Frankly I think this affects the historical objectivity. Supermaverick ( talk) 14:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Elie Wiesel has been heavily misled by those who lured him to become the chair of this shady organization that is mainly active in driving Arab families out of homes in the Palestinian village of Silwan. It is well known that many Arabs (from the neighborhoods of Katamon, Talbia, Bak'aa, Abu Tor, Beit Mazmeel, Deir Yassin and others, all now in West Jerusalem) left their homes as a result of Israel's war of independence during 1948-9, homes which were subsequently inhabited by Jews. Similarly, many Jews had to leave homes in several neighborhoods that had more (The Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem) or less (Silwan, Sheikh Jarrah and others) Jewish inhabitants, in what became the Jordanian part of Jerusalem, and was inhabited by Palestinians. The results have been painful to both sides. But now, the settlers of El-AD Ir David Foundation are pushing to reverse this in a single direction. They [12] ,together with the settlers of Ateret Cohanim [13] are some of the most vicious Jewish settlers groups, creating day by day provocative situations by pushing Jewish families to the midst of a huge Palestinian neighborhood and raising the tension by bringing heavily armed security guards and police to deter and to threaten the locals. With their claiming of "Jewish property" in Silwan, they open wide the historic wounds and provoke Palestinians to reclaim the other neighborhoods of Jerusalem that they lost in 1948-9 and the whole of pre-1967 Israel [14]. If Successful, this might lead to the destruction of Israel, which now Wiesel currently helps, being unaware of the daily tensions and clashes brought by Ir David actions.
If Professor Wiesel supports Israel's existence, he should renounce the organization of Ir David, that disguises its real aims and actions by pouring enormous amounts of money into archaeological works which are not their main interest [15]. He should therefore resign ASAP from that shady position that causes continuous clashes [16] and turmoil. The Director of Ir David, David Be'eri, has been personally involved in an incident that became famous due to the photo and video of him hitting with his car children who threw stones at him [17]. The involvement of Wiesel with Ir David Foundation will only provoke more clashes in Jerusalem. רסטיניאק ( talk) 04:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
The bio states that Wiesel lost his life savings in the Madoff fraud, but that can't be true because the trustee has been able to find billions. I don't know the exact percentage, but I thought the recovery rate is set to be something like 50% or more. I know that there Madoff victims can sell their rights to recovery to hedge funds who are intereted in buying the rights, and as I last recall, they are offering something north of 40%. So this has to be changed - he didn't lost his life savings - he lost maybe 40% or 50% of his life savings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The one held in the Imperial Hotel in Paris, which had been Nazi headquarters, during the occupation of France. This photo captures the essence of 'payment, as much as possible, for war debt.' It was featured as a video in a PBS special, since 2010, I believe. 24.253.253.251 ( talk) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/19/elie-wiesel-urges-tougher-sanctions-against-iran-in-full-page-ads-in-wsj-nyt/ Check This link ,similar to his Ads Regarding Jerusalem Wiesel pushes Likud political Positions,when The Obama Administration tries to defuse an issue This Could be added as Recent activities-- 2003:51:CD87:E670:FD99:A7B7:C167:32D6 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source on this? The only mention I can find of it (other than sites that are clearly getting it from Wikipedia), is this CNN page: [18] saying he received the honorary knighthood in 2006. However, the british gov't page listing these only goes back to 2013 [19] and the only other archive I found [20] seems to have no mention of him. He's not listed at any of the wikipedia articles listing the recipients, so no sources there either. ― Padenton| ✉ 13:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
there are claims that Elie Wiesel had stolen the story of a man named, Miklos Gruner. Gruner claims that he is the man in night and that Wiesel is a fraud. Im amazed that there is no section in that regard. Even if the rumors regarding Gruner are false (which i believe they are), it should still be discussed here. -- 67.80.63.219 ( talk) 02:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I am responsible for the comment. I had forgotten to log in. -- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 03:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, but WP:FRINGE theories by no significant sample of the population are not something to be included in WP articles. Also, WP:NOTGOSSIP― Padenton| ✉ 18:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There is so much criticism about Elie Wiesel, some even say he is a fraud (ie. the relation between the tattoo number "A-7713" and Miklos Grüner) so why aren't there a criticism section. Seems many other people have that section, why not here. Snowonweb ( talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
My additions to the controversies section are as follows. In 1968 Wiesel himself wrote of his writings, stating that:
“What are you writing?” the Rebbe asked. “Stories,” I said. He wanted to know what kind of stories; true stories. “About people you knew?” Yes, about people I might have known. “About things that have happened?” Yes, about things that have 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.” [1]
" Rabbi Kahane, the Jewish extremist, is less dangerous than a man like Elie Wiesel, who says anything that comes to mind. [...] You just have to read parts of Night to know that certain of his descriptions are not exact and that he is essentially a Shoah merchant [... Wiesel] has done harm, enormous harm, to historical truth. [2]
"The presence of such a pit on the ramp, within full view of the arriving deportees, is impossible. Blueprints of the area where the ramp was located, the American aerial photos, other [eyewitness] testimonies, the Germans' intention to keep the deportees in a state of calm and illusion as long as possible, all these elements invalidate this scene. [3]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 ( talk)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The introduction to this article describes Wiesel's writing as "powerful and poetic" - is this an objective statement? While it may be true, where is it coming from? Forgive me, I'm new at this, but shouldn't there be a citation - ie, "so-and-so has described Elie Wiesel's work as powerful and poetic", or shouldn't it be taken out? Cdawg116 ( talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that by restoring the criticism section of Elie Wiesel, I may have inadvertently endorsed the view that the Holocaust was somehow a myth. I just want to make it clear that this was ABSOLUTELY NOT MY INTENT. My intent was to simply restore what I saw as straw man rhetoric back to critics like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein in their own words. As can be found out from the page history, THAT original section was contributed by Bogdangiusca. --issident|Dissident]] ( Talk) 23:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Are you serious, really?
Do we need to include this paragraph if Tom Sawyer does think so? Certainly not. Because it's totally groundless. However, IMHO, Chomsky's criticism is not without a point. If the IDF does cause excess innocent Palestinian civilian deaths, why can't we criticize Elie Wiesel over his silence? After all, he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He's supposed to stand out to say something if his some of people is now doing something horrible.
-- Toytoy
I agree. I put in a small mention of Wiesel's "zionism," but I don't have enough information right now (other than some of Finkelstein's writing) to add a section to this article. However, the fact that Wiesel is a supporter of Israel, which is explicitly a racial state (it's illegal for anyone in the Israeli govt. to deny that Israel is a state for "the Jewish people," according to the same law that "forbids" racism.) and, in recent policies, quite similar to Nazi germany (the deportation of palestinian spouses, breaking up families in the name of "jewish identity" etc.) while he should, of all people, oppose it, is very much worth noting. He's held up in most schools in the US as a great human rights activist (Night is required reading), so these contradictions should be pointed out. He's not an angel.
Atomsprengja 00:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to critise Israeli policy without this lable? It seems like a very cheap shot to call anyone who you disagree with an anit-semite. If you disagree, argue the point, don't name call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.29.1 ( talk) 00:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I am moving the section on the Kosinski Hoax here. Given the total length of the article I don't think this subject warrants more than a couple of sentences, what was written seems like a rant written by someone who cares about Wiesel only because he is somehow related to this kosinski guy. It is very badly written and although I don't know anything about the content, it seems very POV. The article it links to has been marked for POV GabrielF 00:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Completely biased, added by dimwitted Slavic editor
Cautious (198.82.71.55
from hist) (added author ip/struckout Cautious: …
Guy M… (
soapbox))
The editor that added the last comment, please sign it by your name. I added rephrased version to the main article. Cautious 00:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I removed the bit about Noam Chomsky because I can't find a citation for it anywhere and, frankly, it doesn't sound like something he would say. I replaced it with a cited bit from Norman Finkelstein. If someone can track down and verify the source, please feel free to put it back. AaronSw 08:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the paragraph about Noam Chomsky's criticism was deleted? Bogdan | Talk 11:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've reworked the criticism section. I know that some of these changes may be controversial so I'd like to explain them one by one. 1. In the previous version the first paragraph began by talking about criticism of Wiesel over Israel and then led into Finkelstein's criticisms, I've separated these into two paragraphs so that it is organized a little better. 2. I removed the specific charge of "$25,000 and a limo" per lecture. I asked my Dad, who has arranged for Wiesel to speak on a number of occasions what Wiesel charges (without mentioning Finkelstein) and he quoted a figure thats a fraction of Finkelstein's claim with fees varying for the type of institution that asks Wiesel to speak (a college vs. a fund-raising organization). He hadn't heard a request for a limo. He also mentioned that Wiesel is part of a speakers bureau which sets up his events and also sets the fee and collects a substantial portion of the proceeds. This means that even if Wiesel wanted to set a fee of $1 a speech he couldn't unless he handled all the logistics himself. Since Finkelsteins figure is at best misleading, and since I'm not about to use my Dad as a source in wikipedia to counter Finkelstein's claim it seems best to simply say that Finkelstein thinks that Wiesel is charging excessive fees for speaking and is turning his solemn work into a business. 3. I wanted to put Finkelstein's claims in context by adding the NYTimes review. This review represents the reaction of the "mainstream" Jewish community (as Finkelstein says, the rest of the mainstream media pretty much ignored his book) so I don't think its way out there. I think its important to present the fact that Finkelstein's claim is not a majority opinion but the observation of a lone activist which has drawn a great deal of criticism. I might have preferred to use Wiesel's words but I could not find a reference to Finkelstein in his memoirs or "Conversations with Elie Wiesel."
Clearly I have a strong POV here, but having put considerable effort into this article I'd like it to be as NPOV as possible. I hope that I've done a good job representing Finkelstein's POV and I hope that the criticism section has an overall neutral tone. GabrielF 01:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
User:Pyrop removed the allegation that Elie Wiesel used to work for Irgun on the ground that "how could he be in France and Israel at the same time?" I think this removal is not well-researched. If that argument is valid, then how could anyone not located in Langley, Virginia be a CIA agent?
Elie Wiesel's Irgun connection has been raised multiple times in the past. For example, in a letter published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, it says:
You cannot disprove it with something like "how could he be in France and Israel at the same time?" -- Toytoy 16:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
There seemed to be a lot missing from the Life in the United States section. I added some info on his academic career and political advocacy, but I think there's still more to do. 68.125.62.126 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. There should definitely be a mention of Wiesel's visit to the White House in the '80s when he begged Reagan not to visit the military cemetery at Bitburg, West Germany. -- Micahbrwn 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for this?
I went ahead and removed the sentence "He was the first to use the term "Holocaust" from the 1st paragraph. " Since it's definitely not true that he was the first to use the term (see Holocaust). It is possible that Wiesel was the first to use the term to refer to the Nazi genocide, but I haven't been able to find a source for that. 68.127.109.54 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I remembered reading something about this in Wiesenthal's second memoir And the Sea is Never Full, however the text is actually inconclusive -
My reading of this is that Wiesel was one of the first but that he cannot prove that others didn't coin the term independently. I recommend that we say "Some historians credit Wiesel with giving the term 'Holocaust' its present meaning, but he does not feel that the word adequately describes the event and wishes it was used less frequently to describe less significant occurrences such as everyday tragedies."
GabrielF 23:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
That seems like a lot of detail about a relatively minor point for the opening paragraph. Maybe we can find somewhere else to mention it? Otherwise I'd suggest we just leave it out -- I think it's really interesting, but maybe not appropriate in a short discussion of his life and contributions. 68.127.109.54 00:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Does any know what his connection was to Schindler's list? I couldn't find anything in the entry for the movie or on IMDB.
I've been using Amazon's Search Inside a Book feature on Wiesel's two memoirs (All Rivers Run to the Sea and And the Sea is Never Full) in research for this article. I'd recommend it to everyone editing this article. Wiesel doesn't mention Schindler's List in his memoirs, thats not conclusive of course, but I also couldn't find a connection between the two using google either. I suspect someone added the link to Schindler's List as a general reference to the Holocaust. It should probably be deleted pending further research. GabrielF 00:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can protect this page? The vandalism is frequent, and quite shocking. Gareth E Kegg 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
"After the war, Wiesel was placed in a French orphanage where he started stealing valuable items from other inmates and gradually was transformed into the heinous criminal and con-artist of today. In 1948, Wiesel began studying philosophy at the Sorbonne but he was caught cheating and was expelled from the University. He taught Hebrew and worked as a choirmaster before becoming a professional gangster. As a journalist he wrote for Israeli and French newspapers, including Tsion in Kamf (in Yiddish) and the French newspaper, L'arche. However, for eleven years after the war, Wiesel refused to write about or discuss his experiences during the Holocaust. Like many survivors, Wiesel could not find the words to describe his experiences. However, a meeting with François Mauriac, the 1952 Nobel Laureate in Literature, who eventually became Wiesel's close friend, persuaded him to write about his Holocaust experiences."
I've remove~d the entire paragraph, expecting to someone to fix it properly. It's outrageous how people can do this to Wikipedia. Wintceas 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Will someone please edit the section about "The Trial of God." (All the way at the bottom of the page) It seems to have been vandalized. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereotonic24 ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving this to the talk page because I don't believe its entirely true, even if it is, it needs to be sourced and put in a section other than criticism. GabrielF 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
True. Wiesel and his Foundation have pushed for the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Redman5578 ( talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the reference to Night being a novella should be removed. A novella is by definition fiction, and it is evident from all the press the new translation is receiving that this is not a work of fiction.
---
Personally, I see a novella as being a book which is shorter than a normal novel, but longer than a short story. His novella was not very long, but still long enough to not be a short story. I dont think that whether its fiction or not has anything to do with it. Besides, many novels are fiction, in fact, most are.
--- Correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 ( talk) 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I did a little to add to an article that made little sense. Much more work needed here.....DW
The caption under the photograph is wrong. Elie Wiesel is eighth in the photograph, starting from the left. The photo lists him as being Seventh. You can compare the eyes in the photo to the photo of him as a young man. They are clearly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 ( talk) 01:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Gabbi is the best
Can someone with the proper privileges change the caption on the main photo of him? The wording is really awkward.
-Yes, I'd like to add to that, concerning this caption (it may be different from the one mentioned): "Buchenwald, 1945. Wiesel is on the second row from the bottom, seventh from the Calvin." What is a Calvin? I'm not aware of its meaning here, and only found in wiktionary:
"a surname of French and Spanish origin, meaning a bald person"
Still doesn't make sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuenglander ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The external link entitled "1945 Buchenwald photograph from USHMM" is broken. Ian Glenn 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Without intending in the least to diminish the stature of Wiesel, the category "Biblical scholars" doesn't fit him. He is surely richly familiar with the Bible, and is acknowledged as a scholar, but his relation to the field of biblical scholarship is tangential. Wikipedia risks misleading a casual reader to idenityf him as a "biblical scholar." Akma 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Can the lead line about Wiesel be improved to conform to more "standard" biograpgical usage? It sounded like he is a Jewish novelist, not the clearest verbage. Backroomlaptop 05:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Beganlocal ( talk) 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I read the book "Night" and his father was refered to as "Chlomo". I realize that Shlomo is probably intended to be the Americanized version, but should I change it to "Chlomo"? KSava 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Chlomo is the french spelling for Shlomo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.94.51 ( talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Why does it say that his father's name is "Sholomo"? There is no such Hebrew or Hungarian name. It should be "Shlomo" or in Hungarian "Slomó". —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.0.231.142 (
talk)
21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a part saying that he traveled to Auschwitz with Oprah, please add when he did so, etc. KSava 20:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The book he wrote- night, was so chilling, I read it in only a few days and it was a quicker read, but no the less as chilling. The saddest part was when Elie and his father pulled into the first of many constration -(spelled wrong)- camps and he decribed the smell of people, of flesh burning, (accualy) (sp) the smell of burning human hair. Another really sad part was when Moshe the beedgle(?)(correct me if i'm wrong) was telling Elie about how some Nazi were throwing babies in the air and using them for target practice. It was an extremly well written account. And if someone wanted to read this book, they should definitely spend a long time reading it, let it sink in as you go. Stop before each chapter and reflect on what you had just read. (That would be the best advice to you, from me who just read it.) Laurathebora23
Why should anyone be interested in the lies of a professional Liar? Yeah of course, babies as target practice. You believe just anything do you?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.92.172 ( talk • contribs) .
Yea how could anyone believe such lies? Of course, The nazi's killed Jews and conquered most of Europe, you believe in anything don't you? Is that what you mean?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you know that he is lying? Do you have true, believeable proof that he is lying? Really, a website, or book, or even examples? And-- How would you know? Laurathebora23 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The only reson I restrained myself from deleting the two insulting, bigoted, and ignorant comments above was so that viewers of this site could see exactly why the work of Mr. Wiesel and other humanitarians like him will never be done. I cannot help it if you hold hateful and uninformed beliefs, but I must ask you not to foul this site's more intelligent critism with them. You are probably very angry as you read this, but I ask you to restrain yourselves from writing replies, just as I restrained myself from deleting your comments. May this embarassing exchange end here! Person who likes to think 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, like now for replying, but I truly would like to see some proof of where they get their opinions from. Laurathebora23 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't refering to you, Laurathebora23.
The best proof that Elie is a liar is the fact that he, an eye witness, contradicts the orthodox Holocaust story - therefore he is a Holocaust denier and a liar. He even fails to mention the gas chambers in his book Night - a charlatan is the best you can say about him.
Maybe the reason that he didn't add any details about the gas chambers is because he didn;t want to have that be his main focus in the book, if you have read it, and will think back, then you will remeber that he talks frequently about the crematorie. Perhaps that was a single point that he wanted to convey to his many reader.
Laurathebora23
18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Very sorry about the confusion - I thought Night was a historical book, wiki says it was published as a novel. In a novel I guess you can elaborate or leave out anything you want. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
If you weren't so ignorant, you would realize that someone who went through something like that wouldn't need to elaborate.
Kforcrazy
23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)KforCrazy
Man i wish we didnt have to resort to namecalling here. things like calling others "ignorant" and "charlatan" really adds nothing to an arguement. please guys, lets agree to disagree. there will always be disagreements about the holocaust, anything where that many people are involved in such a tragic manner will always be very contentious. lets leave it where it is before anyone gets really upset about it all, please. ~~
Since the book NIGHT carries several clear hoaxes a link to Alex Cockburn's exposure of these fallacies should be included in the article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04012006.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced criticism from the intro per WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced? Ok, maybe having just one source isn't enough to qualify as being sourced, and I'll admit, it was a pretty shaky source. I'll add some more and put it back. If there's another problem, then we can fix it and everything will be great all the better for it.
Atomsprengja 06:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please provide a source for the paragraph on criticism from Romanian intellectuals? Additionally the criticism needs to have some sort of context (what exactly did Wiesel say, when did he say it, etc.) and be more NPOV. If nobody will source this it should be deleted per WP:BLP. GabrielF 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This article needs more information about Wiesel's work in religion. In one of my college classes we watched a video where Wiesel was giving a deep commentary on the first 3 chapters in Genesis, and some of the books in our list of books are obviously about the bible, so obviously he has done a lot of work in this area. In our class we also had a discussion about how he became an atheist during World War II and then eventually became more connected to Jewish faith. Can anyone add more information about this? Academic Challenger 03:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Some anon keeps changing his date of birth. If people want to do this they're going to have to cite reliable sources. Britannica apparently says it was September 30, 1928. If there are other sources, we can have a footnote. — Khoi khoi 03:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This should be added under criticism: http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml Wiesel seems to be one of those many Holocaust survival miracles.
www.ihr.org/ - 68k - Cached - Similar pages 71.63.15.156 ( talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
IHR is not a credible source due to their agenda and organizational links. Redman5578 ( talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
"IHR is not a credible source due to their agenda and organizational links."
This could be more easily said about Elie Wiesel himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In Red Week a Romanian writer acuse Wiesel of telling lies on a French tv station. He said that in 1944 he and his family were arested by Romanian Police. And that is a big lie because at that time NV of Transilvania was under Hungarian control: see Viena Diktat!
What about this? i cant find that in the article: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."
-Elie Wiesel, Legends of Our Time, p.142
Shouldn't that be Romanian-Hungarian-French-American-Israeli Jewish? :) Of course he was born in Romania and had some degree of Hungarian descent (and was a subject of this country during the Holocaust), but he is much more than that. Dpotop 14:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
About all that, what is his native language and what languages does he currently speak? I see he is an american citizen so English. He wrote in Un di Velt Hot Geshvign in Yiddish. He learned Hebrew and he's from Romania, so Romanian. But he was hungarian and Sighet was annexed to Hungary so hungarian. He was learned french after the war so French. So would it be English, Yiddish, Romanian, Hebrew, Hungarian and French? It's quite confusing, so can anyone clear it up? -- Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński |talk to me| |what i've done| |e| 04:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Sighet was annexed to hungary in 1940 and was set free in 1944. So I don't thinks it makes any difference. What matters is that wiesel was hungarian, jewish-hungarian (living in Romania). -- Eres 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the lead per
WP:MOSBIO and other examples. I xplain my edits:
What do you think of this explanation? Dpotop 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should we assume he spoke Hungarian? john k 17:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
John K, If you knew and understood Hungarians, whether they be in Hungary proper or in Transilvania, you wouldn't ask such a silly question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.29.39 ( talk) 09:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In Hungary, Wiesel is universally regarded a Hungarian Nobel laureate (that is, not Hungarian-Romanian, not Hungarian-Jewish, simply Hungarian). See, e.g, here: The 12 Hungarian Nobel prize winners. 62.112.210.136 ( talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out the absurdity of including criticism by Finkelstein. A good analogy would be that one included "Heinrich Himmler criticized Wiesel for being alive." Okay, so what? Finkelstein is among the least reputable reactionaries in America, and I just don't see how his views could be relevant to this article. - Anon, April 17, 2010
In addition to the lead change detailed above, I also added sources for 2 items in the "Critic" section. The two items were deleted by someone a while ago as unsourced. However, the sources were one click away and quite reputable (by Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, respectively), even if not quite mainstream. :) Dpotop 12:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
How, exactly, is his name pronounced? I've only ever seen it written down. Thank you very much, 82.27.28.115 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
the W is pronounced like a V, actually 132.170.34.216 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The phonetic transcription of "Wiesel" is incorrect. The vowel in the second syllable should not be a schwa but rather an epsilon, as in the transcription of "Eli." 76.173.64.255 ( talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The entire criticism section was removed, due to lack of sources, and lack of neutrality. The "windbag" quote was uncalled for. Name-calling does not belong in any encyclopedia. The Chomsky and Finkelstein passages were saved below if you're interested. -Rich 68.239.48.188 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
(removed from Criticism):
Noam Chomsky also noted Wiesel's moral response to the
Sabra and Shatila massacre with the following remarks:
Wiesel's position was that "I don't think we should even comment on [the massacre in the refugee camps] since the [Israeli judicial] investigation is still on." "We should not pass judgement until the investigation takes place." Nevertheless, he did feel "sadness," for the first time, he explains; nothing that had happened before in the occupied territories or in Lebanon had evoked any sadness on his part, and now the sadness was "with Israel, and not against Israel" - surely not "with the Palestinians" who had been massacred or with the remnants who had escaped. Furthermore, Wiesel continues, "after all the Israeli soldiers did not kill" - this time at least; they had often killed at Sabra and Shatilla in the preceding weeks, arousing no "sadness" on Wiesel's part, even "sadness with Israel". Therefore, Israel is basically exempt from criticism, as were the Czar and his officials, military forces and police at the time of the Kishinev massacre, by his exalted standards. [1]
In a radio interview scholar Norman Finkelstein accused Wiesel of cheapening the moral coinage of the Nazi Holocaust by asserting its uniqueness while profiting from public fascination with it:
Elie Wiesel is always wheeled out, and with his long face and anguished heart and cinematic eyes, he always says: "Oh, do not compare." I beg your pardon, I think you should compare. Otherwise, if you don't want to compare, what's the point of it? What are you going to learn from it? ... He says the only thing we can do before the Nazi Holocaust is silence. Well if silence is the only answer, why are you charging $25,000 a lecture? And what are you going to learn from silence? I mean, this is sheer nonsense. [2]
"
The removal of the criticism section was inappropriate because (a) the section adhered to Wikipedia's standards and (b) the rationale furnished for its removal did not even make sense. To wit:
'The entire criticism section was removed, due to lack of sources, and lack of neutrality.'
In point of fact:
(1) all three passages cited were cited with sources; and
(2) If all criticism needed to be 'neutral' before being deemed acceptable, then it would scarcely be criticism.
(3) The remover failed to even to define 'neutral'.
Please do not attempt to insulate Mr. Wiesel from criticism: otherwise his Wikipedia entry will degrade into little more than a politically 'cleansed' hagiography.
(Happy to discuss with anyone who disagrees.)
I found Elie Wiesel listed as a vegetarian in several sites (for example here), but didn't find any reliable source that says so. Can someone help? Thanks. -- Gabi S. ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
A relatively obscure activist writing a letter to the editor is not notable. The criticism section is not supposed to be laundry list of everyone who dislikes Wiesel. Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, although misguided, are well known figures and have published their views in books and the media.
If you want, you can place this citation on McGowan's own wikipedia page (since that page is solely about him). But it does not belong here.( Hyperionsteel ( talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC))
Corrected number of pages listed for "Un di velt" and cited reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.117.248 ( talk) 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the criticism section has what I believe you would call "undue weight". I have enjoyed being a regular reader of Wiki for some time but have not contributed much. I can't compete with your "weasel words", "original research", "3 revert rules", "NPOV", and "edit wars" etc' etc'.... but I do know that this article makes a man whom most agree is worthy of great respect sound questionable at best. I did try to remove the section a week or two ago in the hope that somebody better suited than me would write a more balanced criticism section,(if indeed one is needed at all; couldn't any relevent criticism be spread throughout the article?), but no one was given the chance as within moments it had been reverted and I was accused of carrying out some kind of "test" (?), and that I should be careful removing anything. Okay then. I took that in Good Faith, and I will leave the thing alone, but I would like to suggest that somebody who knows how to improve this without getting administrators on their case, could perhaps have a go at it. If not, then who am I to criticise? After all, I don't know a 3RR from a POV. 212.84.124.97 ( talk) 00:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't care for being called a sock puppet, which I am not, when all I am trying to do is post information on an academic dispute that is relevant to the article. Redman5578 ( talk) 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
No, Long time reader first time editor (hence my ref link troubles with the article ;-) ). Redman5578 ( talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
To head off any edit wars, would "Dispute with" be a fair way of headlining Wiesel's critics? Please advise. Redman5578 ( talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently there have been new reports about Elie Wiesel in the Hungarian press which might be worth including a reference to. I don't consider myself professionally qualified as a translator, but if someone else is up to the job then they could better evaluate it. The articles appear here:
http://www.haon.hu/hirek/magyarorszag/cikk/meg-mindig-kiserti-a-halaltabor/cn/haon-news-FCUWeb-20090303-0604233755 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.134 ( talk) 13:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
My wife, fluent in Hungarian thinks this report linked above should certainly not be dismissed but investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.29.39 ( talk) 10:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As a native Hungarian, I made and hereby I give you the translation of the linked report. The report appeared on HAON aka Hajdú Online which is the central news portal of Hajdú-Bihar county in Hungary. The raw translation is as follows (maintaining formattings of the original):
(end of translation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.10.140 ( talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
For further important readings about the reports above and to read its detailed analysis, see: http://thoughts-in-english.blogspot.com/2009/07/holocaust-business.html (Be aware that it is NOT a Holocaust denial page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.10.140 ( talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Poor Elie, he lost his faith to Hitler and his savings to Madoff. Is this not worthy of mention in this article? 98.201.123.22 ( talk) 16:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What is this section doing in an encyclopaedia? It reads like an essay by a third-rate first-year university student. I propose it gets removed rather than improved, as it adds nothing to the page but a load of subjective opinion. Melaena ( talk) 23:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed several supposed "criticisms" [5] of Wiesel on WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP grounds. Another editor has reverted, [6] and I have redone my deletions.
I'll add that the remaining so-called criticism suffers the same problem as the others - it is unsourced and partisan, with no support of relevance or weight. It claims that Noam Chomsky criticizes Wiesel for supporting Israel, and is cited only to Chomsky's book and a citation so garbled I cannote tell what it is, apparently an interview of Chomsky. That is of course an WP:OR summary of Chomsky's opinion. Even if sourced, Chomsky is (apart from his highly respected work on linguistics) an out of the mainstream commentator, with an opinion on every possible far-left subject. That he criticizes Wiesel simply for being pro-Israel seems utterly unremarkable. One would need strong sourcing to show why Chomsky's opinion has any illustrative value or made any difference in Wiesel's life.
The whole notion of a criticism section is problematic, and goes against the usual norm per WP:CRIT. It is not our job here on Wikipedia to tell someone's life story then make a run-down of all his detractors. There has to be some reason and context of why any particular incidence is worth noting, and that is better worked into the overall narrative than presented as a list of negative items that easily becomes a WP:POV WP:COATRACK. It is almost embarrassing that a Wikipedia article describes the life of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, then devotes a section to others taking potshots at him. The one controversy that seems notable (I cannot tell if it is because the source is not online) is the mention that he and Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal are rivals who had a series of run-ins. That, at least, says something interesting about Wiesel's career and might actually have affected it.
- Wikidemon ( talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so your opinion on the subject is worth more than Chomsky's or Finkelstein's? If you're prepared to include the plaudits, what's wrong with including some criticism? If there is compelling evidence of Wiesel taking a mercenary approach to the issue, I think it's only fair to allow readers to assess this information for themselves. The article should not be a hagiography. Melaena ( talk) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The way you're defining NPOV and reliable sources is not accurate. To use Finkelstein as an example, the facts that a)he was denied tenure and b) he was banned from Israel and has had run-ins with pro-Israeli authors, have no bearing on whether he is a reliable source or whether inclusion of his research complies with NPOV.
He was denied tenure not because his work lacked accuracy - there was no question of this, and DePaul actualy praised his scholarship when denying tenure - rather because DePaul felt his style of argument was not sufficiently 'Vincentian'. I repeat, nothing to do with accuracy.
I'll ignore the leap in logic that makes his run-ins with the Israeli government and pro-Israeli scholars proof of an anti-Israeli bias, and the subsequent leap that makes this 'fact' relevant, and focus on NPOV itself. NPOV does not preclude the inclusion of 'biased' views - neither you nor I have any real authority to decide whether views are biased - rather, the aim of NPOV is to ensure a balance of conflicting views within an article. In removing all criticism of Mr Wiesel, you are violating this concept.
The article doesn't necessarily need a criticism section, but it is ridiculous to systematically remove criticism with such tenuous reasoning. Melaena ( talk) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, you seem to be missing the point. The fact that someone is 'biased' against the person in question is not sufficient reason to exclude their opinion. The line (or circle) of argument reminds me of Kafka: Wiesel has downplayed other genocides and made a lot of money from the Holocaust. Finkelstein is biased against Wiesel because he doesn't like the fact that Wiesel has downplayed other genocides and made a lot of money from the Holocaust. Finkelstein's assertions that Wiesel has downplayed other genocides and made a lot of money from the Holocaust are unreliable because Finkelstein is biased against Wiesel.
This isn't just about subjective opinions, it's about demonstrable facts. Finkelstein may have some very objectionable opinions, but judging from what you've written on the subject, you've removed opinions that are based on solid facts. If you like, I'll provide full references for Finkelstein's statements on Wiesel's self-enrichment and his uses of authority to downplay the Armenian genocide as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus the (less biased?) sources used by Finkelstein to boot.
Regarding weight, the argument that the combined opinions of Finkelstein, Hitchens, Chomsky, and many others merit not a single representation in an article of this size is indefensible, the notion that facts presented by them are also worthless, even more so. Melaena ( talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Read again - not worthless, but indefensible. I've read through your original post, and while I agree with your view of the self-published author, I believe your line on the rest of the criticism is rather suspect, and I've noticed I'm not alone. Nobody's asking that the criticisms be presented as irrefutable truths. The problem is that you refuse to allow the article to acknowledge that criticisms from well-respected authors exist. As another editor has already suggested: 'you don't have to agree with him, just summarize their views neutrally, fairly, and accurately', and in the words of NPOV, 'the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view'.
You reject mention of a Hitchens piece on the grounds that the Nation is a leftist publication. Again, if it was presented as a fact, I'd understand this reasoning, but it is presented as an opinion, and is not a fringe publication. Should views expressed in the Guardian be rejected on the same token?
I will draw in Hitchens' and Finkelstein's criticisms, appropriately framed and sourced, in due course, unless you have any further objections. Melaena ( talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK - Starting with Finkelstein, I suggest that the part of 'Life in the United States' that discusses his involvement in various political causes should include a mention of his role as chair of the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide in Tel Aviv. Finkelstein states that Wiesel withdrew 'because the academic sponsors, against Israeli government urging, included sessions on the Armenian case, [...] sought, unilaterally, to abort the conference, and, according to Yehuda Bauer, personally lobbied others not to attend.'
This is from The Holocaust Industry, 2nd ed., and Finkelstein's sources are 'The Book of the International Conference...' and Israel Amrani's article 'A Little Help for Friends' in Haaretz.
I think a description of his political activities should include his objections as well as his advocacies. If not in the Life in the US section, perhaps the information could be inserted later on the the article, to contextualize his recent condemnation of Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide. Melaena ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
I'm deeply surprised to find no criticism section in this article. I've read and understand Wikidemon's argument as to why such a section should not be included, but find it unconvincing. A criticism section is common on Wikipedia; prominent academics, activists, and politicians often if not always have sections detailing the criticism of their work. Wiesel's status as a Nobel Laureate, Holocaust survivor, or activist for peace does not insulate him from criticism. Ultimately, if someone as prominent as Chomsky or Finkelstein have leveled a reasoned criticism of Wiesel, I see no viable explanation above as to why it cannot be included. They are both well known and respected authors, and including their views does not endorse them. Criticism should be re-added immediately. I'll wait for consensus before doing so. Dpetley ( talk) 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This piece by David O'Connell should be referenced in a criticism section somewhere. He raises well-founded questions about François Mauriac as probably the real author of NIGHT:
http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Weisel.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.157 ( talk) 13:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I say keep the criticism section. Wikidemon's distinction between Wiesel and writers/philosophers etc doesn't hold water, and even if it did, the idea that this is a reason for not including a criticism section is completely arbitrary. Good work Dpetley or whoever wrote it. Melaena ( talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section lacking a citation - about a statement supposedly made in a book by Miklos Grüner - due to its verifiability issue. If a source can be cited regarding the book and the supposed claim, please restore information about it and write from a NPOV. Yourai ( talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Wikidemon is alone in opposing a criticism section. It is currently very short but Wiesel is a controversial figure, with Chomsky and Finkelstein being the most authoritative sources of criticism. Items that might be covered are uncritical support for Israel and silence over Palestine, attitude to the Armenian genocide and support for wars against Serbia and Iraq. I am strongly in favour of expanding it, but I'm too inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia to attempt it myself. Channelwatcher ( talk) 22:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this quote, mentioned by another poster earlier, should be included somewhere:
"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."
E. Wiesel, Legends of Our Time, Schocken Books, New York, (1982), p. 142.
It is widely cited, usually critically and sits ill with his "ambassador for peace" image. I can't vouch for the source, I copied it, but it should be easy enough to check. Channelwatcher ( talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Wiesel's (shameful, imnsho) active, long term opposition to commemoration of the Roma holocaust alongside the Jewish one? They weren't able to resolve the matter until he stepped down from the museum board.
~~ AbuKedem ~~
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AbuKedem ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources I think you should add something. There seems to be a policy of avoiding including evidence of Wiesel's more questionable activities in this article. Melaena ( talk) 15:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on the following, I removed the description of Night as an autobiography.
Hope my reasons are acceptable. ZScarpia ( talk) 22:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A human rights activist must always be a human rights activist. They can't be a human rights activist some of the time, while giving certain human rights violators a free pass. This is the ultimate hypocrisy. Any group that is the victim of a genocide does not get to form a state, align itself with a major power bloc, arm itself as well as a major superpower, and then get a "get away with genocide free card" to commit grave human rights violations on another group. Imagine if every victim of a genocide did this? The whole world would be blind. 76.180.61.194 ( talk) 21:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
So says you, but this isn't a place for opinion, but for facts and encyclopedic content. Extrabatteries ( talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
1. None of the given sources say that Eric Hunt "tried to drag Wiesel into a hotel room". Neither do most other news articles referring to the case that I could find. What they say is that Hunt dragged Wiesel out of the elevator. I did come across an
article ("Holocaust scholar testifies about hotel attack", written by Terence Chea, a journalist with the Associated Press) which says, describing the incident in more detail: Hunt demanded that Wiesel come to his hotel room for an interview; when he refused, Hunt grabbed his arm and pulled him out of the elevator onto the sixth floor. Note that it says that Hunt wanted Wiesel to go to Hunt's room, but it doesn't say that Hunt tried to drag him there, only that he pulled him out of the elevator by his arm.
2. The 17 February 2007 Yahoo! News article,
"N.J. man arrested in attack on Wiesel" (which is currently number 23 in the list of sources) is no longer accessible and so cannot be used for verification of the material supposedly based on it.
3. Although the Eric Hunt
blog clearly shows, assuming that it is actually written by Eric Hunt, that he is a Holocaust denier, it cannot be given as a source for the last sentence in the section, where it is stated that "he continues to maintain and update a blog which denies the Holocaust and is critical of prominent Jewish people." To use it in that way is original research.
4. I think that the length of the section in relation to the rest of the article gives the incident undue weight.
--
ZScarpia (
talk)
14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Wiesel's postwar "journalism," as the main page innocuously calls it, was for the Irgun. [1]
Irgun was a terror organization founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who Primo Levi among others, notes was a fascist and called himself a fascist. [2] Irgun is famously known for its commission (along with the Stern Gang) of the massacre of the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.16.44 ( talk) 09:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikidemon removed my posting about the historicity of Wiesel's claims concerning the non-reference to Jerusalem in the Kuran. I have in fact cited an excellent, scholarly secondary source (the 3rd edition of the Enclyclopedia of Islam) to correct Wiesel's contentious statement, and subsequently restored the passage in a more neutral fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryjhs ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Are Richard Silversteen and Max Blumenthal considered reliable sources? Also at least one section seems poorly written, as the John Hagee segment does not mention references for the controversy. Drsmoo ( talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Silverstein is a widely read Jewish blogger/commentator who blogs on [ Tikkun Olam]. Max Blumental is a well-known online journalist with a detailed Max Blumenthal entry in Wikipedia. The information for the donations by Hagee and associates are both on Bluementhal's site and a suppporter's blog, cited in the entry. I have also added the press reslease from Christians United for Israel, whose founded and national chair is Hagee. Larryjhs ( talk) 05:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I found a For Jerusalem: Answer to Elie Wiesel response here to Wiesel's claims regarding Jerusalem and Islam.
Would it be good to mention it, especially with regards to his views on the Qur'an not mentioning Jerusalem? Why or why not?
Bless sins ( talk) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added, I think it is in note 46, a long quotation from the Encyclopedia of Islam which is the pre-eminent authoritative scholarly resource, and such can be found in Wikpedia entry. It deals well with Wiesel's literalism--that 'Jerusalem' as a noun is not mentioned, but there are other indications, as the quote from the Encyclopedia shows, that it was referred to and alluded to in other ways- it helps to know a little Hebrew and Arabic--but I hope you can trust this source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryjhs ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
New to editing, so sorry for any unforeseen improprieties. The article says "On January 29, 1945, just a few weeks after the two were marched to Buchenwald, Wiesel's father was shot by a Nazi as he was suffering from dysentery, starvation, and exhaustion." This is sourced to a movie. Elie Wiesel's own book on the matter, "Night," at the end of chapter 8, says "The officer dealt him a violent blow on the head with his truncheon." Also, this blow happened on the 28th, not the 29th. Mr. Wiesel then woke up on the 29th in the bunk above his father to find that his father was taken sometime during the night and carried to the crematory, possibly still alive.
In the same section, there is a requested citation for Mr. Wiesel's ID tattoo. Elie Wiesel wrote about this in "Night," near the end of chapter 3. Tried adding a source directly to the article, but it didn't stick for some reason.
Mattchuuu ( talk) 07:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Wiesel or Wiesenhtal who claimed that Christopher Columbus was a converso?
What language does Elie Wiesel write in: French, Yiddish? Somehow seems not to be an insignificant question and ought to be answered early on. StevenTorrey ( talk) 15:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Controversy over historical and religious rights to Jerusalem. The last paragraph seems to be an inference or judgment, not clear fact. Who says that Wiesel's view is inconsistent or in contrast to Muslim interpretations? I think a better source is needed. Regards Nutty Professor ( talk) 14:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a growing underground movement that claims that Elie Wiesel was never in any concentration camp and does not have a tattoo on his left arm as claimed. (In other words, he assumed some one elses identity at the end of the war.) These sources are highly suspect, of course, but their sheer volume of documentation suggests the subject might warrant a sentence mentioning the suspicion. They further claim that Wiesel will not permit his left forearm to be viewed. (Shades of the Kurt Waldheim affair!) Tholzel ( talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hearing no objections from the other editors, I added the above note to the article, but it mysteriously disappeared! I don't understand--The only (mildly) negative mention and it is secretly removed? Tholzel ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I see. So the one thing we won't do is provide readers with any facts that diverge one iota from this hagiography of a living person. Too "controversial.” Of course, I understand. And no matter how well documented these rumors might be, we do not want to offend our readers with any jarring contrary opinions. Thus, I will specifically not say that some might mistake this for simple censorship, no matter how much that might appear to be the case. Tholzel ( talk) 01:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have seen a recent resurgence of websites alleging that Weisel has no concentration camp tattoo, that the number he alleges actually belonged to a relative, etc. Evidently there is no photo on the internet of a tattoo on Weisel, and one (grainy and indistinct) photo of his left sleeve rolled up that does not show a tattoo. I would VERY MUCH like someone to address this matter in a straightforward way. Sussmanbern ( talk) 22:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. How does someone born in Romania end up being described a "French-Jewish novelist" and included in the infobox for Hungarian American.
How the hell is he considered an "American" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.7.85 ( talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
How the "hell" is he American?? Ummm...Perhaps having been a citizen for fifty-five years. That may just have something to do with it. Was that a serious question?? ( 24.62.126.170 ( talk) 06:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
Currently, the second lead paragraph of the article consists wholly of a single sentence. It's too long, especially since there are multiple quotes encased within. Perhaps the sentence can be broken down into two or more sentences, or rephrased. ANGCHENRUI Talk ♨ 10:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot ( talk) 13:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a newspaper article which reports the testimony of a 100% verifiable holocaust survivor, Miklos Gruner, that Elie Wiesel was not the same person as the Lazar Weisel he knew in Auschwitz and Buchenwald, that he is a younger impostor who assumed Lazar's identity in order to tell the story related in "Night".
Gruner, who knew Lazar in the camp, related that Lazar spoke fluent Yiddish, was 10 years older than Elie, and didn't look much like Elie. Elie does not speak Yiddish, refuses to show his tattoo claiming "modesty", and is notoriously unreliable regarding camp details.
Lazar is certainly the author of the earlier Yiddish prototype for "Night". Considering Elie's overwrought and christian-pandering writing, the factual errors about Auschwitz and Buchenwald, his relentless shameless profiteering, and his lack of Yiddish skills, there's no reason to suspect that Gruner is lying.
A Hungarian newspaper is a reliable source last I checked, and if the notability isn't self-evident, the many links are evidence. 38.96.141.82 ( talk) 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think that he doesn't speak Yiddish? I see no reason to believe he doesn't when there is plenty of evidence stating otherwise. For instance, he spent a few years translating a newspaper from Hebrew to Yiddish. Here's my source for that: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Wiesel.html
Also, someone probably would have gotten him on copyright laws if he stole this guys work and called it his own. Besides, just because this one guy says he never saw Elie, doesn't mean he was never there. They could have been on opposite sides of the camp for all we know, and they don't know everyone by name. 76.19.155.77 ( talk) 01:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Elie Wiesel World.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC) |
Can someone add info about the of his Peace Nobel prize in the info? Just add:
| awards =
Nobel Prize in Peace
1986
It should be noted that Elie Wiesel has never ublicly shown anyone the tattoo on his arm. Also, the controversy that has grown from that fact by people that are weary of his credibility is worth mentioning. I understand, however, that a large portion of the population that doubts him may be antisemitic. But that fact alone should not be the reason for refusing to include this information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.156.73 ( talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I recently changed the List of Works section to a Bibliography section (as I have produced a separate Elie Wiesel bibliography article), and in it, I linked to the new article using information from the original chapter. I later noticed that there is already a Bibliography section which is a mixture of works by Elie Wiesel and works about him by other authors. The works in that list by Elie Wiesel are already listed in the Elie Wiesel bibliography. Following the style of the William Faulkner article, I am going to change the second Bibliography section (list of works about Elie Wiesel) title to "References." This second Bibliography section (now "References") appears to have had some citation issues since 2009 that could use some attention. Yourai ( talk) 13:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Wiesel was awarded the Wallenberg Medal and Lecture from the University of Michigan in 1990. http://wallenberg.umich.edu/wiesel.html
Kitty4777 ( talk) 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 141.211.39.55 ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
The_Trial_of_God has an article that should be linked to in the "See Also" section. 75.119.244.23 ( talk) 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Some information stating Elie Wiesel is NOT the Lazar Wiesel shown in the Buchenwald, 1945 photo. Anyone to contradict such statements?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=thvoxnTNssM www DOT elie wiesel tattoo DOT com (URL blocked by wikipedia as "spam" ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.21.35 ( talk) 10:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Some information stating Elie Wiesel is NOT the Lazar Wiesel shown in the Buchenwald, 1945 photo. Anyone to contradict such statements?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=thvoxnTNssM www DOT elie wiesel tattoo DOT com (URL blocked by wikipedia as "spam" ?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.21.35 ( talk) 10:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the article be amended with a section indicating the claim of Jewish camp survivor Miklos Gruner, that Elie Wiesel is a fake. http://www.haon.hu/hirek/magyarorszag/cikk/meg-mindig-kiserti-a-halaltabor/cn/haon-news-FCUWeb-20090303-0604233755 Acorn897 ( talk) 15:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
that clearly isnt Wiesel in the photo.
Shouldn't that say Romanian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 ( talk) 05:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually he came from Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acorn897 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
You got a couple days to add it, or I do. 68.115.53.79 ( talk) 15:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have removed an edit concerning the hungarian surname by 84.1.207.210 (His other contributions were removed by other people)
This is a complex issue since :
- I do not know what is the hungarian version of Eliezer but :
- Lazar (name) is not the same surname than Eliezer (not same biblical origin, not same meaning)
- Why should the hungarian (?) version be mentioned without source (??) anyway.
- The town of Sighet where he was born has changed from Hungary to Romania several times (but was romanian when Elie Wiesel was born) and its name changed also several times.
- Lazar is the surname under which Elie Wiesel (registration number A-7713) was filed at Auschwitz. Along with a clearly wrong birthdate. But with his birthplace written indeed in hungarian : Máramarossziget
- There is a controversy because of that filing. Google for "Stolen Identity Gruner Miklos".
Therefore, the issue has to be handled with great care.
Azeturf ( talk) 18:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The body article states that the subject was born in Transylvania, then a principality of Hungary, but the introduction states he was born in Romania. This is an anachronism. I will correct this, and would appreciate any comments here. Leegee23 ( talk) 16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Transylvania was NOT a principality of Hungary in 1928. At the time it was part of Romania (since Dec 1918). Actually, for most of its even medieval history, Transylvania, although ruled by Hungarian families, was an independent state. Maintaining its independence even during the ottoman occupation of Hungary after the battle of Mohacs (1526) and its transformation in "pashalic", (ottoman province).
On a different topic, I do remember reading a "criticism" paragraph of this article in 2011, disappeared ever since. Frankly I think this affects the historical objectivity. Supermaverick ( talk) 14:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Elie Wiesel has been heavily misled by those who lured him to become the chair of this shady organization that is mainly active in driving Arab families out of homes in the Palestinian village of Silwan. It is well known that many Arabs (from the neighborhoods of Katamon, Talbia, Bak'aa, Abu Tor, Beit Mazmeel, Deir Yassin and others, all now in West Jerusalem) left their homes as a result of Israel's war of independence during 1948-9, homes which were subsequently inhabited by Jews. Similarly, many Jews had to leave homes in several neighborhoods that had more (The Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem) or less (Silwan, Sheikh Jarrah and others) Jewish inhabitants, in what became the Jordanian part of Jerusalem, and was inhabited by Palestinians. The results have been painful to both sides. But now, the settlers of El-AD Ir David Foundation are pushing to reverse this in a single direction. They [12] ,together with the settlers of Ateret Cohanim [13] are some of the most vicious Jewish settlers groups, creating day by day provocative situations by pushing Jewish families to the midst of a huge Palestinian neighborhood and raising the tension by bringing heavily armed security guards and police to deter and to threaten the locals. With their claiming of "Jewish property" in Silwan, they open wide the historic wounds and provoke Palestinians to reclaim the other neighborhoods of Jerusalem that they lost in 1948-9 and the whole of pre-1967 Israel [14]. If Successful, this might lead to the destruction of Israel, which now Wiesel currently helps, being unaware of the daily tensions and clashes brought by Ir David actions.
If Professor Wiesel supports Israel's existence, he should renounce the organization of Ir David, that disguises its real aims and actions by pouring enormous amounts of money into archaeological works which are not their main interest [15]. He should therefore resign ASAP from that shady position that causes continuous clashes [16] and turmoil. The Director of Ir David, David Be'eri, has been personally involved in an incident that became famous due to the photo and video of him hitting with his car children who threw stones at him [17]. The involvement of Wiesel with Ir David Foundation will only provoke more clashes in Jerusalem. רסטיניאק ( talk) 04:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
The bio states that Wiesel lost his life savings in the Madoff fraud, but that can't be true because the trustee has been able to find billions. I don't know the exact percentage, but I thought the recovery rate is set to be something like 50% or more. I know that there Madoff victims can sell their rights to recovery to hedge funds who are intereted in buying the rights, and as I last recall, they are offering something north of 40%. So this has to be changed - he didn't lost his life savings - he lost maybe 40% or 50% of his life savings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The one held in the Imperial Hotel in Paris, which had been Nazi headquarters, during the occupation of France. This photo captures the essence of 'payment, as much as possible, for war debt.' It was featured as a video in a PBS special, since 2010, I believe. 24.253.253.251 ( talk) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/19/elie-wiesel-urges-tougher-sanctions-against-iran-in-full-page-ads-in-wsj-nyt/ Check This link ,similar to his Ads Regarding Jerusalem Wiesel pushes Likud political Positions,when The Obama Administration tries to defuse an issue This Could be added as Recent activities-- 2003:51:CD87:E670:FD99:A7B7:C167:32D6 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source on this? The only mention I can find of it (other than sites that are clearly getting it from Wikipedia), is this CNN page: [18] saying he received the honorary knighthood in 2006. However, the british gov't page listing these only goes back to 2013 [19] and the only other archive I found [20] seems to have no mention of him. He's not listed at any of the wikipedia articles listing the recipients, so no sources there either. ― Padenton| ✉ 13:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
there are claims that Elie Wiesel had stolen the story of a man named, Miklos Gruner. Gruner claims that he is the man in night and that Wiesel is a fraud. Im amazed that there is no section in that regard. Even if the rumors regarding Gruner are false (which i believe they are), it should still be discussed here. -- 67.80.63.219 ( talk) 02:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I am responsible for the comment. I had forgotten to log in. -- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 03:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, but WP:FRINGE theories by no significant sample of the population are not something to be included in WP articles. Also, WP:NOTGOSSIP― Padenton| ✉ 18:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There is so much criticism about Elie Wiesel, some even say he is a fraud (ie. the relation between the tattoo number "A-7713" and Miklos Grüner) so why aren't there a criticism section. Seems many other people have that section, why not here. Snowonweb ( talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
My additions to the controversies section are as follows. In 1968 Wiesel himself wrote of his writings, stating that:
“What are you writing?” the Rebbe asked. “Stories,” I said. He wanted to know what kind of stories; true stories. “About people you knew?” Yes, about people I might have known. “About things that have happened?” Yes, about things that have 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.” [1]
" Rabbi Kahane, the Jewish extremist, is less dangerous than a man like Elie Wiesel, who says anything that comes to mind. [...] You just have to read parts of Night to know that certain of his descriptions are not exact and that he is essentially a Shoah merchant [... Wiesel] has done harm, enormous harm, to historical truth. [2]
"The presence of such a pit on the ramp, within full view of the arriving deportees, is impossible. Blueprints of the area where the ramp was located, the American aerial photos, other [eyewitness] testimonies, the Germans' intention to keep the deportees in a state of calm and illusion as long as possible, all these elements invalidate this scene. [3]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 ( talk)