Talk:Elie Wiesel

Intro

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)

Criticism Section (Old)

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)

---

Criticism

Tom Sawyer, a stupid kid who cannot spell his own name, thinks that Elie Wiesel is a weasel because he looks just like one.

         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)

That is an opinion, (and a rather anti-Semitic one at that). It violates numerous Wikipedia policies, including neutrality, and has no place in this article. Rudy Breteler (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (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)

Columbus

Is Wiesel or Wiesenhtal who claimed that Christopher Columbus was a converso?

Kosinski's Hoax

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)

Elie Wiesel played an important role in Jerzy Kosinski's The Painted Bird (novel) hoax.

The book describes Eastern European peasants engaging in incest, drowning, and meaningless violence - such as eyeballs being plucked out. Kosinski shows his deep hatred toward peasants and his complete ignorance about their life. He describes them using the same paint as Anti-Semitic books described Jews.

The real wartime experiences of Jerzy Kosinski were as follows: he survived under forged identity in the family of Catholic Poles in relatively safe and warm conditions. A Catholic priest had issued a forged baptism statement, that was the common practise in the Polish Catholic Church during the WW2. He was reunited with his parents after the war, but he has never showed any gratitude towards his rescuers. According to Kosinski's biographer, his family survived the war by pretending to be Christians, and this may have instilled in him a from hist) (added author ip: …Guy M… ^(soapbox))

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)

I take issue with the Finkelstein section. What Finkelstein said was unreasonable and unfair. Maybe its because I come from a tradition where ad hominen attacks on survivors are considered extremely unjust or maybe because my Dad knows Wiesel slightly and considers him a tremendously nice guy but Finkelstein's criticisms just don't seem to be all that notable. Are we really obligated to include every nasty thing someone has said about the subject of an article? Chomsky I can understand, he's a household name and his criticisms were at least intellectual in nature, but a guy who makes a quip "There's no business like Shoah-business?" Are we really obligated to include that? I don't want to censor the article, I have no problem presenting criticism of Wiesel, but can we at least present legitimate criticism from legitimate sources? GabrielF 05:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, even though Finkelstein's criticisms on this, and most topics, are more hysterical than factual, he has a following, and is reasonably well-known. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's criticism

Is there any particular reason why the paragraph about Noam Chomsky's criticism was deleted? Bogdan | Talk 11:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see AaronSWs post above. The article was largely rewritten recently and although I carried over the Chomsky section in the rewrite AaronSW felt that Finkelstein was more appropriate. If Chomsky agrees with Finkelstein, as the original version indicated, than please feel free to add this, but lets try to keep the criticism section in a reasonable proportion to the rest of the article. GabrielF 15:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... It appears that Chomsky was quoted saying that in a letter submitted to the Jerusalem Post by Prof. Daniel McGowan, Professor of Economics at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY, in 1997. [1] and from there, it was quoted in other sources. AaronSW is right, unless a better quotation is given, it should not be written in the article. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Chomsky actually said that, since he often sympathise with the people that fight the establishment, etc. Bogdan | Talk 15:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More on the criticism section

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)

I think the ad hominem attack on Finkelstein is simply irrelevant and uninformative. If you want to say something like "the mainstream Jewish community disagrees with Finkelstein" or "Finkelstein is a controversial figure", fine -- it seems kind of obvious, but fine. But quoting something calling his work "sad", "warp[ed]", "[a] perversion", "indecent", "juvenile", "self-righteous, arrogant and stupid" -- without explanation -- is a completely unwarranted personal attack and it doesn't add anything to the section. As to the Chomsky/Finkelstein questions above, Finkelstein and Chomsky are very close friends, it's just that Finkelstein tends to specialize on the Middle East. AaronSw 16:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel and Irgun

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:

Perhaps it is because he decries terrorism, yet never apologizes for the bloody terrorism perpetrated by his employer, the Irgun, for whom he worked from November 1947 to January 1949 in Paris as a journalist for Zion in Kanf.[2]

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)

Wiesel's job with the Irgun was as a translator for their newspaper in France. He joined this paper after the Jewish Agency turned him down. I don't see a problem including this fact in the body of the article, but it has to be done in a way that addresses the complexities of the issue. The text that JayJG removed associates Wiesel with the King David bombing (which is incorrect) and is framed in a very POV way. More research is needed on what Wiesel felt about the Irgun at the time, the extent of his involvement, and how he feels about their actions now. It is not sufficient to simply label him a terrorist and be done with it. GabrielF 15:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not a criminal case where beyond a reasonable doubt would be used to prove someone's guiltiness. This is about a man's conscience. This is about a Nobel Peace Prize winner's conscience. This is an ex post facto test to tell a true humanitarian from a shameless POV salesman. I think Wiesel fails the test miserably. He simply has no integrity.

Most German people did not know at least so much about the mass-murders before the end of the war. But they always tell you they are sorry. You might have to work for someone to buy foods to feed your family but that's not an excuse to justify the fact that you've been working for an organization which had done the King David Hotel bombing just a year ago. At a minimum you have to say sorry for that.

We are not talking about a bigot drinking beers in a cheap bar, aren't we? -- Toytoy 23:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your opinions about Wiesel are interesting, but the fact remains that he apparently worked as a translator for their French newspaper after being turned down for another job. What this has to do with the King David Hotel bombing, and particularly the wording used in your insertion regarding it, is difficult to understand. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Some facts:

• 1946: Irgun did the King David Hotel bombing -- an act of terrorism.
• 1947: Elie Wiesel worked for an Irgun newspaper (I don't know much about his actual involvement).
• All the time: Elie Wiesel critizes other people's past fault.

To be fair, Elie Wiesel shall be examined under the moral standard applied on typical ex-Nazi members who are unrelated to war crimes. -- Toytoy 00:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

No, Elie Wiesel should be "examined" according to Wikipedia standards and policies. The important ones in this case would be Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. If you want to criticize Wiesel, you need to cite significant and relevant sources, and write the criticisms in a NPOV way. What you certainly cannot do is "infer", base on your own analysis, that he is not "sorry" for something. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Toytoy, if you want to do your own research you have to publish it elsewhere in a reliable newsletter or something and cite it. if you can't produce a reliable source, sorry, out of luck. --Makuta 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing info

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)

Wiesel was first to use the word Holocaust

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 -

"Some scholars contend that I was the first to give the term 'Holocaust' a modern usage by introducing it into our contemporary vocabulary. Why did I choose that word over another? At the time I was preparing an essay on the Akeda, the sacrifice of Isaac, the world ola, translated as 'burnt offering' or 'holocaust' struck me, perhaps because it suggests total annihilation by fire and the sacred and mystical aspect of sacrifice, and I used it in an essay on the war. But I regret that it has become so popular and is used so indiscriminately. Its vulgarization is an outrage." (Page 18)

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)

You're absolutely right, I put it in the section on his life in the US. GabrielF 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Credited by many as being the first person to use the term "holocaust," [3] "The term Holocaust was coined by Elie Weisel, a Holocaust survivor, writer, peace activist, and Nobel Peace Prize winner." [4] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Movie

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)

Vandalism.

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)

We appreciate your efforts to combat vandalism. Rather then removing sections altogether, a better method is to revert the changes made by the vandal (do this by going to the history tab). Be sure to report all vandals also. Rudy Breteler (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (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)

Armenian Genocide Paragraph

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)

Wiesel has also stated repeatedly that the Armenian holocaust should be refered to as a holocaust and that what happened to the Amenians should not be called genocide. Wiesel also said that the disabled, gypsies, gays and other gentiles killed in the camps during the holocaust should not be thought of in the same respect as jews killed in the holocaust, even though their treatment at the hands of the Nazis was sometimes far worse, because only 5 million gentiles were murdered compared to 6 million jews.

True. Wiesel and his Foundation have pushed for the recognition of the Armenian genocide. Redman5578 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Memoir or Novella

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.

Look in a dictionary. All novels are fictional. If it's not fictional, it's not a novel. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

you are right, it should be listed as a short autobiography, not a fiction novel. Rudy Breteler (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

--- Correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Misc.

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)

Jewish decent

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)

Agree it is unclear and not in line with WP:BIO. I will edit this.

Beganlocal (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Father's Name

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)

Oprah

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)

Night

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)

Intro

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)

Romanian/Hungarian Criticism

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)

Since nobody has come forward to source this accusation, I've removed it. GabrielF 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiesel and religion

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)

Date of birth

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. —Khoikhoi 03:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

IHR about Wiesel

This should be added under criticism: http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml Wiesel seems to be one of those many Holocaust survival miracles.

Institute for Historical ReviewSite of the world's leading Holocaust denialorganisation. Many articles from its journal (founded in 1980) are reproduced, and also includes a few general ...

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)

RED WEEK

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

did he say that? that totally seems to contradict his statement that "The Jewish people have never had recourse to hatred, even in their struggles for survival....If we had to hate all our enemies, we would have little time or energy for anything else." (Preface to A Passover Haggadah, 1993).It definitely seems worth putting in. --Makuta 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian-Hungarian Jewish novelist?

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)

Elizer Wiesel was born in Sighet, which at the time belonged to Romania, however, it was part of Hungary for almost a thousand years, and it was again annexed by Hungary in 1940. Therefore, if you really want to define his origins before he was taken to Auschwitz, I would say he was a Jewish-Hungarian living in Transylvania. Most likely his native language was Yiddish, but he grew up speaking both German and Hungarian which were the dominant languages in Transylvania at that time. In Night, it is clarified that both he, and his father spoke German, and since he was living in a mainly Hungarian part of Transylvania, it is almost certain that he spoke Hungarian as well. I, myself, also speak those languages because my heritage is almost the same. (Eddie 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

I corrected the lead per WP:MOSBIO and other examples. I xplain my edits:

1. the guy was born in Romania, and lived there for some time
2. he became known while in the US, so I presume "American" is his nationality
3. he was of Jewish descent and culture, in its Hungarian specific form

What do you think of this explanation? Dpotop 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

From memory, I was told at his Sighet memorial house that on his return he did not speak Romanian to avoid errors. So it seems that his Romanian is rusty enough that he does not feel comfortable. --Error 17:10, 13 August 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)

Criticism

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)

The sources were, in fact, dubious. marxists.de and zmag are not good enough sources when it comes to negative material about living people. In addition, the New York Times Book Review by Omer Bartov was certainly a reliable source, but it didn't make the claims attributed to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronounced?

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)

• Eh - lee - We - zell GabrielF 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

the W is pronounced like a V, actually 132.170.34.216 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel, but more of a semi-Z sound instead of an S sound.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

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.

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.

"

Criticism section restored

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.)

Criticism is very important. I didn't object to the removal of that section when I saw it erased, because I viewed the complete blanking of it as an enormous improvement of the article. Four paragraphs of Hitchens' writing to two sentences of Wiesel's; are we really going to pretend that was a balanced view of Wiesel?

I'll try to cut back the criticism to make it reasonable; hopefully I'll strike a happy medium. DBaba (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The current criticism section is really grating. Of course criticism needs to be presented in a conservative and distanced fashion, but it crosses the line into subtly mocking the critics. For instance, it is written that "Hitchens implied that Wiesel had an association of some kind with the militant Palestinian Jewish organization Irgun in the 1940s, an organization which Hitchens characterizes as having 'employed extreme violence against Arab civilians.'" But Wiesel himself acknowledges, in his memoirs, that he wrote for the Irgun house organ Zion in Kampf, and characterizes his role as a "militant journalist, fighter for Jewish freedom." And that the Irgun employed extreme violence against Arab civilians is not Hitchens' or anyone's opinion but incontrovertible fact. The summary given of Norman Finkelstein's remarks is even worse. Finkelstein said that Wiesel earned speaking fees by having the eyes of a moving star and is plotting to diminish the importance of the genocides of communists? WHAT? This is so sloppy that it has to be deliberate (and it borders on a WP:BLP violation against Finkelstein.) Seriously, cut it out. You know why Finkelstein criticizes Wiesel, you don't have to agree with him, just summarize their views neutrally, fairly, and accurately. <eleland/talkedits> 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

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.

Please sign all posts with four tildes ~~~~. I believe that the French nationality was adopted later in his life, when he found a home there after the war. Rudy Breteler (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

How the hell is he considered an "American" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.7.85 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He may very well have the French citizenship. At the end of WWII, when the death camps were liberated, tens of thousands of children were left orphans. Many were so young, they didn't know their last name, where they were born, etc... Despite the horror in the camps, the kids were still kids and they teamed up in small groups as any other children would do. They older ones would rear and take care of the younger ones. As these kids came from all over Europe and they often spoke different languages, they would end up "learning" (automatically) whichever language allowed them to communicate fluently. This is how, at the end of war, many children arrived in France, simply because they knew a few words of French and it was assumed that they were French. I'm *not* claiming that this is Wiesel's case. One thing is for sure, after the war, thousands of orphans arrived in France. They were placed in public institutions and research for their families were launched. Many never found their family and they grew up in France thereby automatically acquiring the French citizenship.

I do however know that Elie Wiesel's wife is a French citizen (by birth). If I remember correctly, she also is a survivor. But I might be wrong on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.12.119 (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's French because he grew up after the Holocaust in France; he's American because he's an American citizen; he's Romanian because he grew up in Romania; he's Hungarian because his home was part of Hungary between 1940 and 1944 and his father was Hungarian. Nationality is a complex thing. Has he ever made a comment on the matter? It sounds like he considers himself Jewish above all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Elie Wiesel vegetarian?

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)

Daniel A. McGowan

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))

Edit on 10-4-2008

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)

criticism again

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)

Trying to fix an edit

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)

Have you edited Wikipedia under another username? If so, can you say which one or ones? Thanks. IronDuke 23:55, 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)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your quick reply. Can you say if you came here on your own, or if someone suggested you check it out? Thanks again. IronDuke

Anyone know Hungarian?

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)

Elie Wiesel and Bernie Madoff

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)

'The literary, theological, and Jewish contributions of Elie Wiesel'

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)

Criticism section

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.

• My first deletion[7] removes two poorly sourced disparagements per WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. The first is a completely unsourced statement that Norman Finkelstein criticized Wiesel of enriching himself through his Holocaust commentary, and downplaying other genocides. Per BLP, unsourced material like this should be summarily removed and should not be re-inserted, period. Even if it were sourced that Finkelstein said this and it is a fair characterization of what Finkelstein said, there are two fundamental flaws. For one, there is no indication that it matters what Finkelstein thinks. Many people think and write many things on many subjects. Finkelstein was denied tenure and put on leave by his university, banned from Israel, and had a series of high-profile run-ins with pro-Israeli authors - hardly a neutral source. Second, the criticism here attributed to Finkelstein is a common claim widely made against any person writing about the Holocaust, or in fact any atrocity. By publishing and lecturing on a topic the writer makes a living from it; by talking about one atrocity one ignores another. There is no reason to believe that this common gripe has anything particular to do with Wiesel or in any way enlightens the reader about who Wiesel is and what his career is about. It is only a single data point that a single partisan disparaged him, for an unknown reason.
• The first deletion also removes a statement that Aaron Zelman of JPFO criticized Wiesel for favoring gun control, because Zelman thinks that gun control enables genocide - cited only to a press release by Zelman for his own publication. Self-published material is specifically excluded from BLP, and even if this could be sourced to a reliable source it suffers the same problems as Finkelstein's opinion: no indicaiton that it matters. Further, both JPFO (a rare anti gun control Jewish group) and Zelman's position (civilian ownership of guns prevents genocide) are far off-center to the point of possibly being WP:FRINGE. Fringe detraction is inappropriate for a BLP>
• The second edit that was reverted[8] is a stylistic matter, but I don't see how anyone could possibly support the material. In it the Wikipedia author speculates "Perhaps the best overall introduction to Wiesel's life and thought are..." but of course there is no sourcing that these are the best introduction or that it is a "perhaps" and not a sure thing. That is of course unencyclopedic editorializing. One guideline that covers this is WP:WTA.
• The third and final edit[9] removes a paragraph-long summary of a strongly disparaging editorial criticizing (among other things) Wiesel for supporting the early Jewish militant organizations involed in the founding of the State of Israel. The editorial, "Wiesel Words", begins: "Is there a more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel?". It is by Christopher Hitchens, a polemicist, that appears in The Nation, a self-described leftist publication. This is not a reliable source and not a suitable reference for opinions about Wiesel's credibility. Although it is true by examining this primary source that a partisan writer disparages Wiesel, it is original research to summarize the disparagement and decide it is significant enough to include, without secondary sourcing to establish what Hitchens said, its context, and its relevance and importance to Wiesel's biography. We do not reprint, or describe, every piece of disparagement that might have been written about someone.

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)

My opinion is that Finkelstein and Chomsky are not reliable sources, nor has the noteworthiness or relevance of their opinions been shown. I'm not sure if you're making a proposal here, but classifying biographies as hagiographies or disparagements is not terribly useful to figuring out what belongs in an article - you have to look at each piece of content in light of our content policies. Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 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)

Reasoning not tenuous, editor not ridiculous, removal not systematic. Sorry. No way is a Finkelstein editorial disparagement of Wiesel a reliable source. The question is whether it is a noteworthy criticism worthy of repeating in a bio. Finkelstein's partisanship, repute, and the grudges he bears, are relevant to that. Of course Finkelstein is biased regarding Wiesel. He calls him a Holocaust profiteer. My points there are twofold: it fails WP:WEIGHT and it fails relevancy. Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 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)

So my position is "worthless" in addition to "tenuous", "ridiculous", and whatever else? I'm having trouble keeing track. My original post in this section summarizes my reasons for considering the removed criticisms to be variously fringe, undue weight, not of sufficient relevance, POV, insufficiently sourced, etc., as well as the overall concern about criticism sections being unwise. If you can find secondary reliable sourcing for any of this that you feel overcomes those concerns, please feel free to present it here. Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 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)

Not sure what you mean by "draw in" but don't re-add the material without justifying it and establishing consensus for inclusion. If you believe a detractors opinion is worth citing, please find secondary reliable sources to establish that, and propose some way it is relevant to the body of the bio rather than a criticism section. Further, BLP violations may not be added even with consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 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)

No one has responded to my suggestion regarding reinstating the criticism of Wiesel. I'd still like to wait for a consensus before moving forward, but given the amount of criticism on Wiesel from prominent academics and others, I'm going to reinstate it if there are so few objections. There seem to be more users clamoring for including the section, but I'll still wait for more comments. Dpetley (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - I hadn't bothered responding because the "no viable explanation" comment, after I gave a detailed explanation I consider viable, seems to be a discussion stopper. Please note that my removal was on WP:BLP grounds, among other things. Regarding the general approach, if a particular event is noteworthy, and can be sourced as such, then on a case by case basis it may be worth working into the overall flow of the article. However, as I explained above, a prominent person's criticism does not self-authenticate itself as being reported. Thus, the fact that Chomsky derides Wiesel (and likely a few thousand other people) over the unremarkable fact that Wiesel supports Israel, is not helpful. We don't pepper the encyclopedia with a note of every person Chomsky and others with relatively extreme beliefs decides to criticize. On the other hand, if Finkelstein has a public feud with Weisel as he does with Dershowitz, and it is reported by enough major sources to overcome WP:WEIGHT concerns, that could be worked in. Criticism and praise sections are for the most part disfavored on Wikipedia, and it is particularly unencyclopedic to attach them to biographies. To some extent criticism (or more aptly, critique and popular reception) information is appropriate for, say, musicians, philosophers, films, politicians, reality show contestants, etc., because it is a measure of their performance. However, an activist / scholar / writer does not exist to be praised. The appropriate measure there would be to assess how influential he was, and what he got done. Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What I take issue with is Wikidemon's statement: "Criticism and praise sections are for the most part disfavored on Wikipedia, and it is particularly unencyclopedic to attach them to biographies." Quite to the contrary, criticism sections are common on Wikipedia, and I conclude from that not exactly disfavored. As for being "unencyclopedic," including information on detraction of Weisel will provide a more complete entry. Looking at the pages of some of the people we have mentioned, Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein, all of them have criticism or controversies sections. Wikidemon is correct in noting Wikipedia doesn't serve as a platform to air all of Chomsky's or any other academic's grievances (the list would indeed be too long). But criticism sections are so common to Wikipedia that the criticism section in the article on Wikipedia itself has been expanded into a full article on its own, Criticism of Wikipedia.

Are we creating the best Wiki article here if we deny space for criticism of Wiesel? If other pages include space for controversy and/or criticism, what privileges Wiesel from the same treatment? It would be dishonest to present this or any article about a widely known academic or public figure without some mention (if not fuller explanation) of the fair criticism surrounding her/him. Melaena proposed a sensible idea above: if an outright criticism section cannot be added (though I still think it should be), at the very least it's fair and honest to include the objections raised over Wiesel's conduct and ideas as presented by Finklestein and others in some other type of section(s). Dpetley (talk) 13:15, 13 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)

Wiesel and the Roma

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)

After the War - removal of reference Night as an autobiography

Based on the following, I removed the description of Night as an autobiography.

1. The article on Night describes it as "a work by Elie Wiesel based on his experience, as a young Orthodox Jew, of being sent with his family to the German concentration camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald during the Second World War."

2. The Alexander Cockburn article "Did Oprah Pick Another Fibber" lists reasons why some parts of Night cannot or are probably not true.

3. The book is often referred to as a novel.

Hope my reasons are acceptable. ZScarpia (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a human rights activist

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)

Notes on the "2007 Attack on Wiesel" section

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 work in Irgun

Wiesel's postwar "journalism," as the main page innocuously calls it, was for the Irgun.

Irgun was a terror organization founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who Primo Levi among others, notes was a fascist and called himself a fascist. Irgun is famously known for its commission (along with the Stern Gang) of the massacre of the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.16.44 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiesel and his ad in the NY Times 15 April 2010

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)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the the 3rd edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam is not describing Wiesel's recent ads. Does that encyclopedia cover his "view on the Koran and Jerusalem" and contrast it with Muslim interpretations or western scholarship? If not - if it is Wikipedia and its editors who are making the contrast -- then that particular paragraph has a WP:SYNTH problem. Per my edit summary in deleting the material initially, it sounds reasonable that Wisel's taking out a highly charged full page ad in the Times would be noteworthy, but to know that it is important and relevant enough to include in the article we need a third party reliable source to say so. We can't just cite the ad itself, a statement by Americans for Peace Now, or an editorial in Haaretz, none of which are reliable sources. If we're going to mention this and describe it as a controversy we need a reliable source that says it is. I won't delete it again immediately, because I suspect those sources may be out there, but please try to find some. This search[10] turned up this,[11] which does seem to be a reliable source confirming the whole account. I know it sounds a little convoluted, but because ynetnews, a reliable source, mentions the opinions of Americans for Peace Now (a not reliable source because it is partisan), it confirms that those opinions are worth noting and are relevant to Wiesel. So the text in this article mentioning APN's response should contain a link to the ynetnews article (or some other nonpartisan source), with a courtesy link to APN. I hope that makes sense. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability of elements of the Controversy section?

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)

Response to Wiesel's remarks on Jerusalem and Islam

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 think it's a very interesting piece that sheds light on the matter. However, as an open letter / opinion piece it is not considered a reliable source vis-a-vis Wiesel. We would need to see a reliable source that mentions the letter in order to know that the letter is important enough to include here. Still, I would like to see some sources that critique Wiesel's position. The tough part is finding ones that fit the encyclopedic standard. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:48, 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.