Talk:Hedy Epstein

POV

This page is a POV travesty. As of this morning the page essentially consisted of a one sentence description of who Hedy is, followed by an attack on her biographical claims, followed by accusations of anti-Semitism, followed by one line telling people where she lives. Everything about this page smacks of an attack page and WP:NPOV, from the topics selected, to the headings used, to the order in which facts are presented. (I don't think I know of a single other biography where a person's controversial facts are presented first, and their biographical facts are relegated to mere footnotes at the bottom). I've done a little cleanup work to try and at least make facts which are in dispute reflect that, but a lot more work needs to be done. Until then, I'm adding the NPOV header and asking other editors (especially those more experienced in this area than I) to help out. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of Wikipedian anti-Zionist biographies, Bachrach44. As ever, it's a disgrace. <eleland/talkedits> 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to try and bring politics into this. Hedy is a controversial figure, and any bio will clearly reflect that. I am something of an eventualist and an optimist, so I would like to think that Wikipedia's policies and procedures are such that we can ultimately make a good article which restricts itself to verifiable facts and upsets no one. Also I think that prior to about a week ago this article had pretty much been ignored and only really edited by one or two people. Wikipedia's entire philosophy is that more people can only improve the situation. (More people = more better) --Bachrach44 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See also section

I removed a link already in the lead. Why is Finkelstein there? If it is related, work it into the article or remove it, or spell out the connection. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to remove the ISM link when reverting some BLP violations. Finkelstein is a very prominent critic of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians who is also the son of holocaust survivors, Epstein is a prominent critic of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians who is the daughter of holocaust victims. <eleland/talkedits> 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's some more direct connection I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.192.129 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Application of WP:BLP and sourcing standards

I am removing some information from this page again.

She asserts that "Some people believed my story," of having been brutalized.<ref>http://www.counterpunch.org/cattori06132007.html</ref>

Please. This is written to make it sound as if she is a fantasist, and the "story" is in doubt. The Irish Times and The Middle East magazine are both reliable sources, and they both report it as fact. If there has been any official denial of the incident issued, I am not aware of it. I understand that editors may personally believe that this incident could not have happened; however, that does not give license to twist around and stitch together the words of reliable sources to make a point the sources themselves don't make. <eleland/talkedits> 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Holocaust survivorship contested" section

The main source for all this is an article in Israel National News, better known as Arutz Sheva, which is the media arm of the Gush Emunim religious settler movement. It is a questionable source for most purposes and certainly inappropriate for contentious material in biographies of living people. What's more, the author is Lee Kaplan. Kaplan is a former TV actor and fringe Zionist activist from San Fransisco who, according to the SF Weekly is an "ideological soldier for the Israeli side" who "uses tactics that others call extreme, and he calls necessary." He is obsessed with the International Solidarity Movement and notorious for using underhanded tactics to smear them. In a letter, a vice-president of Duke University stated that "I have worked with many journalists over the years, but never have I experienced one whose behavior has been so outside the norms of recognized ethical and journalistic standards as Mr. Kaplan."[1]

In addition, this cites the Nathan Mintz editorial which is already referenced in the "speaking tour controversy" section. However, it omits the fact that the Stanford Daily later apologized for the editorial and acknowledged that it may have misrepresented the content of Epstein's speech, because it was written before the speech which it criticized had actually been given. All accounts of Epstein's speech acknowledge that she began with an explicit statement of avoiding direct comparisons between the Nazi holocaust and the Israeli occupation; most acknowledge that she did, in fact, avoid them. So it's out as a source for this.

"Accusations of anti-semitism"

Again, this is all covered in the section on her 2004 speaking tour. In addition, neither of the sources actually goes so far as to accuse Epstein of antisemitism. The ADL source says that because she compared Nazis and Israelis in her talk (they don't say how they know she did, nor do they acknowledge that most of those who heard it say she didn't,) this would meet a certain definition of antisemitism which includes "demonization," or hyperbolic criticism, of Israel. Another ADL official, whom I have quoted in the section, says that outright calling her antisemitic would be "a bit harsh." The JCPA source gave a listing of "activities that spill over into various forms of hate-speech" which includes one of her talks, again claiming that she compared Israel to Nazis. There's a difference between participating in "an activity that spills over into various forms of hate speech" and being an antisemite. "Spill over" could mean anything - did one extremist Muslim stand up during the question period and say "Death to Israel?" I don't see how that would make Epstein into an antisemite.

Further, I must point out that under WP:BLP, "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." Neither of the two sources which mention Epstein generally in the context of antisemitism are about Epstein; rather, editors have culled one-line mentions of Epstein out of large reports. There is no evidence that these not-quite-accusations against Epstein amount to anything more than the standard low-level flak associated with anybody who takes an opinion on Israel/Palestine. You can't make bread out of chaff, and you can't make a section in a biography out of various tiny snippets, misread and inflated into a much larger issue than they really are.

I have put several hours of work into this article, and while I'm absolutely open to seeing it further edited and revised, I'm not very happy about seeing sloppy and biased editing of this sort. Please, at least read the sources you are citing and compare them with the text they're cited to support. I don't like to play "revert cop," but come on! <eleland/talkedits> 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Holocaust survivor"

This woman describes herself as a Holocaust Survivor. This is her claim to fame. It should be in the first sentence of the article.Whyzeee (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Her website describes her as a holocaust survivor, as do many newspaper articles written about her. I'll have to go back and check but I don't recall seeing her apply the term to herself - when asked, she emphasizes that she did not suffer the way so many others suffered, since she escaped Germany before the outright genocide started.

If the term "Holocaust survivor" is to be used, it must be stated as a fact rather than in this argumentative "self-proclaimed" fashion. Her background is not in dispute, and it is unfair to portray her as a fraud or fantasist. There are certainly enough sources that describe her as a survivor; I used "refugee from Nazi Germany" simply to avoid any unnecessary drama. As I can see, this may have been a mistake. <eleland/talkedits> 04:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Her background IS in dispute. There are some people who believe she is a Holocaust survivor, and there are some people who don't. She presents herself as a Holocaust survivor on her own website. There are other websites that claim she is not. There is plenty of evidence that she describes herself as a Holocaust survivor. The question of whether she is being fraudulent can be addressed later in the article.Whyzeee (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen a single reliable source which disputes her background. I have seen one hit piece by a self-proclaimed "investigative journalist" who is actually a fringe extremist political activist, but AFAIK it has only ever been published by Arutz Sheva and FrontPageMag (and maybe Canada Free Press) none of which are reliable sources. But even that doesn't actually dispute the facts of her background, just whether they qualify her for the magic term "Holocaust survivor." Terms like "self-proclaimed" clearly connote skepticism if not outright mockery. They would only be appropriate for someone whose background claims are widely discredited. Thus far I haven't seen a single reliable source even attempting to discredit Epstein's background. So it's inappropriate. <eleland/talkedits> 17:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Eleland, to accept Counterpunch as a source byut not accept Front Page is extreme bias on your part.Elan26 (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Fruthermore, Whyzee is correct, her web page and press releases self-promote as a "Holocaust survivor". she makes it an issue.Elan26 (talk)Elan26

What the hell? I thought you were banned for abusive sock-puppeting.

Anyway, I don't accept "CounterPunch" as a source generally. When well-known, reliable source commentators publish in CounterPunch, their pieces may be used as a source, in my opinion. And in this case, the CounterPunch source is a direct interview with the subject of this biography, which obviously qualifies as a useful source. Furthermore, it is only being used here as an extra source for something already appearing in The Irish Times and The Middle East. (I do recall that you, on the other hand, wanted to use a cherry-picked quote from that interview to portray Epstein in a negative light - now you're complaining to me about the source? Please.) What's more, the FrontPageMag source at issue has been written by a particular individual with an extremely shady reputation as a militant activist who uses unethical tactics. So your comparison is, to be blunt, meaningless.

As for the idea that Epstein has made it an issue, that's simply not our call to make. We are not here to promote our own personal views. If there are any reliable sources questioning the applicability of the term "Holocaust survivor" to Ms. Epstein then we can talk. Otherwise, there's no reason to even have this discussion. <eleland/talkedits> 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist."

If you read any of the media reports or articles about this woman you will see that it is very significant (and controversial) that she is labeled a "Holocaust survivor". Also, it is the most important aspect of her biography. If anyone objects to the term "self-proclaimed", then maybe they can think of another term like "self-described", that they find more acceptable. She describes herself as a Holocaust survivor. No one can dispute that. The person above me believes that criticisms of Mrs. Epstein's use of the term "Holocaust survivor" are all illegitimate. That's fine. If you want to dispute these sources, then provide evidence to show why they are wrong. If you disagree with the ideological stance of the publication that printed the articles, that is not enough of a reason to disregard the articles.Whyzeee (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whyzee, you are making factual claims which are unambiguously and obviously false. "Any of the media reports or articles" do not indicate that her description as a Holocaust survivor is "controversial." The only media report that I'm aware of which indicates this is the unreliable Lee Kaplan / FrontPageMag hit piece. It's going to be difficult to have a serious discussion if you play fast and loose with reality in this manner. Everyone from her hometown St. Louis Post-Dispatch (headline: "Holocaust survivor has earned right to criticize") to the Jewish Telegraph Agency and Yediot Ahranot refers to her as a "Holocaust survivor," without reference to this ephemeral "controversy" existing in extremist, unreliable sources. If you have made even a cursory examination of the sources then you know this. Please stop misrepresenting the facts. <eleland/talkedits> 04:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in your mind Israel National News is not a reliable source. But many people who read it would disagree with you, and honestly it is not up to you to decide which media outlets are reliable and which aren't. You cite the fact that many journalists use the term "Holocaust survivor" to describe Mrs. Epstein. If this is the case, then why do you object to using this term in the article Lead Section?Whyzeee (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel National News is of questionable reliability to begin with. It is an activist source with a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not to say that INN can never be used - it would be a good source, for example, to support text like, "Israeli settler activists say that 'xyz.'" An opinion editorial in INN is somewhat less reliable still, and certainly not acceptable for derogatory information in a biography. An opinion editorial in INN written by a fringe activist with a reputation for unethical journalism is wayyy out of line. Regardless of what "many people" might think, this is a pretty straightforward application of longstanding Wikipedia policy, rather than something "in my mind."

It would be acceptable to use the term "Holocaust survivor" to refer to Ms. Epstein, because she is widely described as such by reliable sources, and no reliable sources dispute this label. Because that is a somewhat vague term with no agreed-upon definition, I prefer "refugee from Nazi Germany." Whichever term is ultimately adopted, vaguely mocking qualifiers like "self-proclaimed" cannot be used. <eleland/talkedits> 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly makes Irish Times a reliable source for this story. I would only rely on them for a story like, "Irish IRA terrorist activists say that 'xyz.' If they had done their research before printing this article, they would have seen that Mrs. Epstein was not even in continental Europe during the War. So, no I don't consider them reliable.

It appears that your problem with my edit is that you don't like the tone, not that you think I misstated any facts. I will change "self-proclaimed" to "self-described". I hope you consider that less "mocking".Whyzeee (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Irish Times is a mainstream newspaper with a respectable pedigree, as are the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Kansas City Star, the Dayton Daily News, the Waco Tribune-Herald, the Contra Costa Times, and The Age - not to mention the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and Yediot Ahranot. Logic of the form "X is the truth, but source A doesn't understand this, so A is an unreliable source" makes a mockery of the very term "reliable source." I'm done with you. <eleland/talkedits> 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source other than the Irish Times, namely The New York Times. The New York Times is certainly a reliable source. Samplingwithreplacement (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a couple dates to this discussion which might help. The 'official' start of the holocaust, especially in Germany, is often seen as Kristallnacht - November 1938. So if someone escaped Germany in 1939, it was after the Holocaust had begun. Gavroche42 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Her status as a survivor is only discussed because of her opinions. The "official" start of the Holocaust, as you say, could also be equally and conventionally stablished with the creation of the Nuremberg Laws. But this is not our decission to take, because original research should have no place here. Her participation in the whole flotilla issue has renewed the interest in her, and now we have plenty of international sources considering her a survivor. Leirus (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Definition of Holocaust survivor

Wikipedia has a definition of Holocaust survivor. It reads: "Those listed here were, at the very least, residents of the parts of, Europe occupied by the Axis powers during World War II who survived until the end of the Holocaust (and the war)." Epstein does not meet this definition because she was in England during the war. She is a refugee from nasi Germany. Her self-promotion as a "Holocaust survivor" makes this a controversial point.Elan26 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26

No, Elan. Wikipedia has an article called "List of Holocaust survivors," which adopts an operational definition of "Holocaust survivor." Your attempt to cast this as the official Wikipedia definition of "Holocaust survivor" is fairly silly. Above, I have quoted an eminent Holocaust scholar specifically addressing the question of who counts as a Holocaust survivor and pointing out that there is no agreed definition. I might as well have quoted any number of reports in the Israeli press which make this same point.

A point does not become "controversial" when you personally disagree with it. Rather it is controversial, for Wikipedia's purposes, when some relatively significant weight of opinion, as expressed in reliable published sources, disputes the point. (Or, even better, when such sources explicitly describe the point as subject of controversy.)

In this case, we have an extremely wide array of sources calling Epstein a Holocaust survivor - everything from the Irish Times to Yediot Ahranot. We have one source, the missive of an extremist fanatic circulated in various far-right Internet-only publications, which calls her a "fake Holocaust survivor." Not even Epstein's detractors like the ADL or various campus Hillel groups go this far.

In summary, I am not going to play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with you any longer. As ever, neutrally worded summation of critical views from reliable, significant, published sources are welcome. Smears and innuendos will be reverted without further comment. <eleland/talkedits> 06:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse my commenting on this -- I was checking recent changes and found myself here. I am just trying to understand (for my wiki-education) the issue(s) involved. Just a few notes: (1) My first (completley uninformed) impression of the phrase "Holocaust survivor" was that it perhaps applied to those who had been released from Nazi death camps by Allied troops. But (2) a bit more thought and reading, and it was clear my first impression was FAR too restrictive. (3) Her family saved her my getting her out. They died. She survived. Yes, I see why some might argue against the use of the phrase "Holocaust survivor -- that was MY FIRST impression: "wrong phrase. 'Refugee' right"... But (4) if my family had put me on the Kindertransport, and they had been killed because they could not escape, too ... well, "survivor" is not a word I would argue with. Again, excuse my commenting on this. Just attempting to understand. ("Refugee" does seem to be the right encyclopedic word. Her own use of the phrase "Holocaust survivor" is perfectly understandable, and to me, now, not "an issue." ) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Proofreader, I think you are right. However, some people are afraid of using the term Holocaust survivor in this article, because they know it will be a cause of embarrassment when the reader finds out that she has been "stretching the truth". By the way, my grandfather escaped from Germany in 1936. Does that make me a Holocaust survivor, too?Whyzeee (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whyzee's point is well taken. There is a sense in which every Jew in the world is a Holocaust survivor. That is why definitions are useful. Epstein is a child refugee from Nazi Germany. But look at comparable cases. Suppose someone is one-eighth black, identifies strongly as black, and becomes a leading scholar or black poltical figure. Everyone is fine with that. But suppose a person who is one-eight black and is well-known among his colleagues for his racism becomes notable and makes something of a habit of coming out with outrageous statements about the recial inferiority of blacks. This describes Jim Watson. Now suppose that Watson was saying: I'm black and I'm telling you that there are inherent, unalterable biological differences in intelligence between black people and everyone else. I would find that morally repulsive. Hedy Epstein 's self-billing as a Holocaust survivor" is problematic because after a life in which there was no apparent involvement with the Jewish community, she had made a late-in-life career of flinging extreme accusations at Jews and Israelis. She would not be getting press attention if she was Arab or Norwegian or even if she was one of the many American Jews who makes extreme accusations against Israel. Her notability hinges on her status ad a Holocaust survivor. And that status is false.Elan26 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

That comparision is outrageous. By the very definition gave here, she was a legal resident of Germany at the start of the war. And by your same logic, it seems that she would be accepted without issue as an Holocaust survivor if she did not have controversial opinions about how Israel is acting nowadays. These days, given her involvement with the Gaza strip flotilla she has ben called an Holocaust survivor by plenty of international newspapers, so I think her status should be reflected in her intro. Maybe stating that she survived the Holocaust via the Kindertransport program. Then each one can decide if she is or not a "Holocaust survivor"

Aaargh, I always forget my signature. Leirus (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

212.163.172.180 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

She was not a resident of Germany at the start of the war, she escaped 9 months prior to the start of the war. She is a holocaust survivor in the same manner that I am a Gulf War survivor (I've never been in the military or to Iraq). I find it in poor taste that she is described as a survivor when she quite clearly was not in death camps or concentration camps- she was in England! She may self publicize as a survivor, but factually that is inaccurate & I believe unsuitable on wikipedia. 86.63.26.124 (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal resident. Even if she was not there at the moment. If she was not, it was because her family sent her away before being killed. It is not like she was sipping red wine in soho. It is not like she emigrated three years before. Anyway, this not a matter of opinion, mine or yours. She is being presented as a Holocaust Survivor in the press all over the world right now, so she can be presented arguabily as a survivor. Or at any rate explain with a short sentence her background. The current one is lacking, biased, and really unsuitable on wikipedia. Leirus (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The phrase Refugee from Nazi Germany is accurate and sufficient. How she is presented in the press doesn't seem like the correct criteria with which to determine whether the additional term is accurate. There is complete agreement on the facts, she was sent from Germany shortly before the war. The only question is the definition of Holocaust survivor, and the press shouldn't be the criteria for such definitions. According to most definitions, she is not a Holocaust survivor. The sentence already describes her as a refugee from Nazi Germany. Adding the phrase Holocaust survivor is at best redundant and at worst misleading to people who accept the more narrow definitions of "Holocaust survivor" than the other phrase already in the same sentence. 195.234.27.10 (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have remove the inaccurate "Holocaust survivor" form the lede. Reason is: Estein is a large category: Category:People_who_emigrated_to_escape_Nazism . Tish includes such notable people as Nobel prize winner [[Robert Aumann and Henry Kissenger. There are a great many such people. it is wrong for Wikipedia to list Epstein as a survivor when none of the other pre-war refugees are so listed.AMuseo (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Holocaust survivors states that "A Holocaust survivor is defined as an individual who... meets the definition of Holocaust survivor established by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum"; that definition is "any persons, Jewish or non-Jewish, who were displaced, persecuted, or discriminated against due to the racial, religious, ethnic, social, and political policies of the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945. In addition to former inmates of concentration camps, ghettos, and prisons, this definition includes, among others, people who were refugees or were in hiding." So Epstein should definitely be placed in this category under the current definition. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and here's another source which defines it as "Any Jew who lived for any period of time in a country that was ruled by the Nazis or their allies is called a Holocaust survivor". And as for whether Epstein is mis-representing her story, the biography page on her website states: "On May 18, 1939, Hedy went to England on a children's transport". I have just reverted an addition to the page that cited Debbie Schlussel calling into question Epstein's Holocaust survivor status. Robman94 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

She is not Holocaust survivor, she left Germany in 1939. Otherwise all Jews living in UK would be considered Holocaust survivors. This is non sense. [2]--Tritomex (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting as I've never seen such parsing of the term Holocaust survivor for those who escaped the Nazis and support Israel. The Kindertransport article makes it clear that those who were rescued by it are considered Holocaust survivors. If you disagree perhaps you should take it up with Yad Vahsem which seems to consider them survivors.[3]. Tritmotex, will you write Yad Vashem and demand they remove the exhibit on Heinz Wolfgang Finke a Kindertransport rescuee who Yad Vashem treats as a Holocaust survivor or do you only object when Kindertransport rescuees who criticise Israel are referred to as Holocaust survivors? 192.235.242.38 (talk)

This letter may be instructive[4]:

Who is a Holocaust Survivor?

I have received close to a dozen emails with a vicious attachment — an Aug. 20 blog post by Debbie Schlussel on her website regarding a “fake Holocaust Survivor” arrested during a protest of Gov. Jay Nixon’s activation of the Missouri National Guard in Ferguson. I have chosen to clarify and correct some issues within Schlussel’s vicious, personal screed.

The question of who is, or isn’t an authentic “Holocaust Survivor” is complex. We at the St. Louis Holocaust Museum and Learning Center define a survivor as someone who lived and suffered under Nazi occupation. This definition was informed by the official terminology used by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in Washington, DC: “…any person, Jewish or non-Jewish, who was displaced, persecuted, or discriminated against due to racial, religious, ethnic, social and political policies of the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945. In addition to former inmates of concentration camps, ghettos and prisons, this definition includes, among others, people who were refugees or were in hiding.” Likewise, Yad Vashem, the national Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, defines survivors, as “Jews who lived for any amount of time under Nazi domination, direct or indirect, and survived.” Clearly, those rescued through a kindertransport meet the above criteria.

By creating her own personal designation of who is a survivor, Schlussel dishonors and discredits thousands of other individuals who were torn away from their families, suffered displacement and sometimes abuse and neglect in their new, unfamiliar surroundings. Most never saw their parents again, as was the case for the target of her vitriol, who lost both parents, and other family members in Auschwitz. To learn more about this subject, I highly recommend the film, “Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories From the Kindertransport.” Should we assume that the writer would similarly delegitimize Jews who survived in hiding or with hidden identity, at constant risk of betrayal or exposure? They too “never saw the insides (sic) of a concentration camp” — Schlussel’s narrow criterion.

The writer was so intent on hurling vulgar insults that factual information was lost to childish name-calling. In addition to incorrectly identifying the location of the subject’s arrest (downtown St. Louis, not Ferguson) she repeatedly refers to Jews “gassed in ovens,” or “cooking in ovens,” no doubt for dramatic effect. One would expect a grandchild of a survivor, or a responsible journalist, to know that ovens were not used for gassing victims, but for burning corpses.

The author’s hysterical, hyperbolic style and numerous inaccuracies distract the reader from the issues and political activism that the writer has every right to disagree with, or abhor. Instead, Schlussel misdirects the conversation through a shameful lack of civility.

Daniel Reich, Curator and Director of Education, St. Louis Holocaust Museum and Learning Center

192.235.242.38 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hedy Epstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140821075628/http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/Protesters-march-against-Nixons-use-of-National-Guard-troops-in-downtown-271737361.html to http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/Protesters-march-against-Nixons-use-of-National-Guard-troops-in-downtown-271737361.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio in "biography" section

The biography section was sourced to other references, but the wording was copied nearly word-for-word from this piece in the NJ Jewish News. Just because each statement was sourced from somewhere else, you can't copy entire paragraphs like that. I've gutted the biography section until someone with time and skill can restore it with new order/wording/presentation. Sorry to destroy and run, I can't rewrite this, and we can't just leave a copyvio unaddressed.

There was an attempt to add this to the "recent deaths" section of WP:ITN; if this is addressed quickly, there still might be time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think what has happens is that a commenter on the NJ Jewish News article may have plagiarised us. The content in Wikipeida dates from August 2008 the article linked to is dated 1 February 2011 and the matching text is in a comment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right; I've reinstated the text. Sorry to jump the gun like that, I had to run and was in too much of a rush to wrap this issue up first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Better to be safe than sorry with potential copyright problems. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hedy Epstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618091016/http://www.counterpunch.org/cattori06132007.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cattori06132007.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206091000/http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/21/tensionsBoilAsHolocaustSurvivorDecriesTreatmentOfPalestinians to http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/21/tensionsBoilAsHolocaustSurvivorDecriesTreatmentOfPalestinians
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070125111604/http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/22/epsteinLectureAnAbuseOfHistory to http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/22/epsteinLectureAnAbuseOfHistory
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/21/holocaustEventRepresentativeOfRisingTideOfAntisemiticRhetoric
• Added archive https://archive.is/20061023201656/http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/25/epsteinVictimizedByAHarshAudience to http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/25/epsteinVictimizedByAHarshAudience
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206091004/http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/22/epsteinLectureAVisionForPeace to http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/22/epsteinLectureAVisionForPeace
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2004/11/1/handlingTheMiddleEastConflict
• Added archive https://archive.is/20071019231359/http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2004/11/1/wissePalestineNotIsraelsFault to http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2004/11/1/wissePalestineNotIsraelsFault
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2004/11/1/talkAboutMiddleEastWithCare
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820035322/http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_Domestic/incidents_on_college_campuses.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_Domestic/incidents_on_college_campuses.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/sylvesterbrownjr/story/913ABC93A876533E8625747600179C97?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520162206/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyqX5ZWgZPPYVkBMfHhOC-FujZHw to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyqX5ZWgZPPYVkBMfHhOC-FujZHw

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)