Talk:Hiram Bingham IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Plea Bargain?[edit]

Because publicity of the American position would be embarassing, the US did not prosecute Bingham for countering policy, in exchange for his maintaining silence.

First of all, how could he have been prosecuted for acting against policy? He didn't break any laws, what could they have prosecuted him for?

Second, where did you get the idea that such a deal existed? What evidence is there, or who (in a position to know) makes such a claim?

19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Righteous Award was Not Given to Bingham IV[edit]

Israel, through Yad Vashem --The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority, awards the Righteous Among the Nations medal and title to any non-Jewish person that is able to prove that he/she has saved at least one Jewish life from the Holocaust.
Bingham IV is ineligible to receive the Israel's Righteous title because no credible evidence was able to be found by Yad Vashem that Bingham IV saved even one single Jewish life from the Holocaust much less the preposterous claims advanced by Robert Kim Bingham (son of Bingham IV) and other members of the Bingham family of the thousands of Jewish lives saved.
For sure, Hiram Bingham IV was not a rescuer of Jews or a hero of the Holocaust that his family is portraying to be.
Please back this up with a source other than this one website. This, and your dubious addition to Hiram Bingham III, as well as the fact that all your other edits are references to, makes it seem like you have an agenda. If you're going to add a section that basically says the rest of the article is bunk, please back it up with more than one source. -Elmer Clark 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Elmer Clark is correct about someone having an agenda. The owner of is the owner of, and from all the edits, presumably the user Webville. The editor of (Kalman Brattman) is presently the subject of a significant news story which outlines how the editor of the site (with his disturbing arrest record) has attempted to destroy the reputation of various Holocaust survivors.

the user Webville (who studied astronomy and doesn't seem qualified as a historian) whose only contributions to Wikipedia seem to be adding links to his site, which makes personal attacks on several survivors of the Holocaust. He has a personal agenda, and apparently has been in some legal soup as a result. The man can only cite his website as a source, all of the links he has been spamming wikipedia with should be removed considering his entire site is in question by professional historians and journalists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 4 August 2006.

In response to Elmer Clark, the primary source that Bingham IV is not recognized of saving even one single Jew from the Holocaust is Yad Vashem itself through its rendered opinion of March 7, 2005. Surely, no one would question that Yad Vashem is not the ultimate authority in those matters.

Now as with respect to the website and its editor, there is nothing there that a rational person can infer that that place has some sort of agenda outside of presenting the story of the Holocaust.

Finally, as with respect to Tilove's article referenced above, a response to it has been posted by the editor of at <>. According to Tilove the "legal soup" refereed above was something that allegedly has happened some 28 years ago vested into a conviction of simple assault. What that alleged occurrence --as presented by Tilove-- has to to do with anything is anybody's guess. As with respect to the "significant news story which outlines how the editor of the site (with his disturbing arrest record)" -- no such thing exist. What is so significant of an alleged conviction of simple assault some 28 years ago, and what all that alleged occurrence of 28 years ago has to do with the current issues involving the deeds of Bingham IV while in Marseilles is again anybody's guess.

If this is undisputed fact, why can't you find a second source confirming it? I'm not going to remove your addition to the article, because it's much more neutral than it was before, but please do find a source other than that confirms it's true. That will eliminate all doubt. -Elmer Clark 08:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? What is your "this undisputed fact" that you keep mumbling about? It is indisputable through primary sources that Bingham IV was recognized by the United States as "distinguished diplomat" through the commemorative stamp just received and, recognized by the State of Israel (through Yad Vashem) as not being a rescuer of Jews and thus Bingham IV was not awarded with the "Righteous" title and medal that is given to any non-Jew tat was able to prove that he or she had rescued at least one Jewish life from the Holocaust. Israel has awarded some 20,000 such titles but refused to give one to Bingham IV.

What is there still that you do not understand? What your malicious reference to Tilove's article on and its editor has anything to do with the current issues discussed? Yes, the editor of that website has published some 3 years ago a critical assessment on Bingham IV whose views were shared by both US (as a distinguished diplomat) and by Israel (as not being a Holocaust hero).

What then is exactly your beef with all this? If the site annoys you --for whatever reason (maybe you are a Holocaust denier, and that is fine with me), use another forum for your grievances as your referenced Tilove's article clearly was implanted by you for no other reason than to show yor true face and biases.


First of all, it was anonymous user who referenced Tilove, not me. I have nothing against; I am not familiar with it whatsoever. However, it is apparent that it is a somewhat disputed source, for whatever reason. The part of your edit that I take issue with is calling him "No Hero of the Holocaust" in one of the article headings. Earlier in the article, it says he helped over 2500 Jews flee the Nazis to freedom. In my opinion, that certainly qualifies him as a hero of the Holocaust, whether or not he received this "Righteous Among the Nation" title. I think it is fair to note Yad Vashem's rejection of recognition of him as a hero, but that does not automatically mean he is not one. It is not appropriate to present this group's decision as fact - an American can still be a hero without winning the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Furthermore, you also state that "Bingham IV was not a rescuer of Jews," but the article itself states that he helped over 2500 Jews flee the Nazi occupation of France! If you are going to add material that directly contradicts what's already in the article, you need to be sure to back it up - and in my mind, one (disputed) source is in no way enough.

To put it more directly, I have two problems with your edit:

1. You state that he is "no hero" based only on the decision not to award him the "Righteous Among the Nation" medal, despite the fact that he did deeds that most people would consider heroic and
2. You state that he "was not a rescuer of Jews," contradicting a statement earlier in the article, without backing it up.
If you can find independent sources (other than - it may be perfectly credible for all I know, but it's best to use sources that are not in dispute) that support these claims, they can stay, but otherwise, they will need to be seriously reworded to conform to WP:NPOV. -Elmer Clark 05:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your apparent obsession with is pathetic: forget about them if you can as they are not an authority in anything. As noted above, they made a critical study on Bingham IV that, in the end, was supported by both the US and Israel.

One to be recognized a hero of the Holocaust needs to be awarded with the "Righteous Among the Nations" title by Yad Vashem that is the ultimate authority in those matters (as our United States Supreme Court in the matter of law).

That YOU have a problem with the decision of Yad Vashem to deny awarding Bingham IV with Israel's Righteous title is something that I or no one else can help you with that. That is YOUR problem for keeps.

As with respect to your "explanation" of WHY you referenced as a "significant" article a muddling article of Tilove attacking and its editor --that explanation of yours is ludicrous. If some anonymous user would have told you that, for sure, he saw some pink elephants, then would you have posted that piece of information in here as both the pink elephants and the Tilove's article have nothing to do with the subject discussed in here?

I cannot spend much more time with you, as in the end you will believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts involved. [Bruce]

PS --From your various "explanations" and "concerns," the readers can form a pretty good picture of the real you.

I'm still not sure whether you're confusing me with User: Either way, please respect Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Your response completely ignored both of my points. No one can be the "ultimate authority" regarding who is or who is not a "hero" - the very concept of heroism is intrinsicly subjective. To say that Yad Vashem did not recognize him as a hero is a neutral statement of fact, and therefore is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. To extrapolate from that "therefore, he is plain and simple not a hero of the Holocaust" is not. In my opinion, if he helped 2500 Jews escape the Nazi occupation of France, he is a hero regardless of what any official ruling might say. That would be equivalent to saying "Martin Scorsese is not a great director" because he has never won an Academy Award for best director. His lack of official recognition has changed the minds of very few, and, although the Academy is recognized as an "authority" on such matters, it would be absurd to categorically say that he is not a great director because they have declined to give him an award. My second point you ignored as well - you wrote "Bingham IV was not a rescuer of Jews." Earlier in this very article, it says "[Bingham] helped over 2500 Jews to flee from France as Nazi forces advanced." You have inserted a sentence that directly contradicts material already in the article, without providing a source. Please take a look at the section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources regarding "exceptional claims" - a claim contradicting the existing article certainly qualifies. alone, regardless of its merits, does not constitute "exceptional evidence" in this case, as its reliability does not appear to be universally accepted, as per the link provided by User: Calling Bingham "no hero" is a point of view and therefore I am proceeding to remove it, and reword your section significantly. If you can find a source other than indicating that Bingham "was not a rescuer of Jews," then that claim may stay; otherwise, it shall be removed as unverified, as you have failed provide references per WP:Verify's section on burden of evidence. I hope you now understand why your edits, as they stand now, are not acceptable. Please find a source for your claim that Bingham "was not a rescuer of Jews." If you have further comments on this, post them here; any more general questions on policy feel free to post on my talk page or the help desk. -Elmer Clark 22:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting how is the official site of Kalman Brattman (editor of, yet the user Webville who spams countless articles with his link and attacks the memory of various Holocaust survivors refers to himself as "Bruce" to make it appear as though its someone without a hidden agenda. Its even more laughable that any time someone edits his point of view contributions to articles or removes spam links, they are immediately branded a "Holocaust Denier". Google "Kalman Brattman Rape" for details on the editor of iSurvived and learn more about his agenda.
It is clear at this point that this user is editing in bad faith with the sole purpose of promoting his website and its agenda. I have removed all reference to it. -Elmer Clark 09:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked this user for a short period of time for repeatedly dumping material on here against apparent consensus, despite being warned. Webville - please provide a good reason to add this material in, and note it would be taken in better faith if it was cited from somewhere that didn't appear to be a site you are trying to incessantly promote. Shimgray | talk | 19:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello you all:

Can anybody explain to me why the undisputed historic fact that Yad Vashem denied Bingham IV the Righteous title is apparently not allowed to appear in the article? Could be somehow the Bingham family behind all this? Just curious. Thanks. Miriam

User:Webville, who put that fact into the article, refused to find a credible source (read: somewhere other than, see above) that confirmed the claim. If you can find such a source, feel free to reinsert the info (but make sure it is neutrally worded). -Elmer Clark 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go at that is the website of Robert Bingham (a son of Bingham IV), you can see the determination letter from Yad Vashem of March 7, 2005 that is buried at the end of his long page. In your view is that a good source of information or something else is needed? Miriam

That page doesn't appear to say that at all. In fact, it implies they have not denied him the title, and that he has been nominated but it's still in the "research process"


I certainly get the picture from this that he's still under consideration. Is there another source that says he's been denied it?-Elmer Clark 08:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point and is a good one if one assumes that the referenced Yad Vashem's determination letter is not the final word in that matter. But such an assumption does not appear to have any grounds of support.

As for the above caption (in the upper case) taken from the referenced Robert Bingham's site --that in all likelihood was posted there well before the rendering of Yad Vashem's decision and is nothing but Robert Bingham's opinion that obviously was not shared by Yad Vashem.


PS. Of course, I have no intention to alter the existing text in the article as that is a responsibility that is better suited for others.
Well if he was turned down for the award, surely it says so somewhere. And of course, feel free to change the text if you do find a source. -Elmer Clark 09:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Elmer Clark. Following your advise, I ventured to make an entry with Yad Vashem's appreciation for Bingham IV. Thanks for "emboldening" me. Miriam

Well done. I cleaned it up a little, but I had no problem with how things were put. By the way - you are User:Webville, right? Not that it makes any difference, mind you, but that was phrased very similarly to how Webville added that section before, and it seems unlikely that a second person would take an interest in that aspect of Bingham so soon after Webville's unbanning :) -Elmer Clark 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elmer,

Thanks for the compliment and for putting your final touch on the text and particularly by placing "Righteous Among the Nations" as a link to an existing Wikipedia article as I had no idea how this is done.

No, I am not the user Webville nor do I have a clue who could be. But referenced in discussion above was made to a website and if Google for Harry Bingham, the 2nd entry in Google is an article on Bingham IV entitled "The Hiram "Harry" Bingham IV Case: Unlocking Uncle Harry's Secrets" at

Yes, I read that article and I could not believe that they attacked Yad Vashem more than Bingham !! in their Concluding Statement. So, I must admit that I have been perplexed.

Finally, I am not sure that I understood about the "unbanning" of Webville. What does it mean? In any event, I had nothing to do with banning or un-banning anybody. Miriam

Ah, ok, forget it. I was just curious. :) -Elmer Clark 10:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the paragraph, it was added under a false pretense. The supposed "new" editor of the page refers to herself as "Miriam", yet conveniently claims she has "no clue" of who Webville is. Apparently Kalman forgot that "Miriam" was one of the pseudonyms he was exposed for in the article . So you either have Kalman Brattman (with his hidden agendas) who has been banned from wikipedia for spamming, posting under an IP and using the exact same name used by a supposed contributor to, or you have an actual woman named Miriam who contributes to iSurvived and is being deceiftul about her intentions in editing the page and denying knowledge of who Webville is (despite the fact that anyone who knows Brattman recognizes that its his official site). My vote is for the former, its a Brattman sockpuppet. I'm going to continue to edit the page as long as I know either Brattman or his imaginary staff are involved in the edits.
I've reinstated it. I am well aware that this Webville, but as long as what he added is now neutral and unbiased, who cares? If the stuff in the section is false or POV, then ok, but as it stands it seems fine. Worry about the quality of the addition, not the editor. -Elmer Clark 03:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Webville is a Sock Puppet and Kelman Brattman. Disseminating false information for personal attacks. Kalman Brattman Report

The report above on Kelman Brattman was made by Eric Saul --a purpoted Holocaust educator with no academic credentials that was exposed by no one else but Brattman. Please see The Eric Saul Case: An Issue of Credibility and Accountability

See also Eric Saul's beef with that says it all.

I suspect that the reason he wasn't awarded a "Righteous Among the Nations" designation by Israel has nothing to do with him not saving any Jews during the Holocaust (he clearly did), but by the requirement that he did so at substantial risk to his own life. Since Bingham was a US diplomat, he most likely had diplomatic immunity, so it was unlikely that the Nazis or Vichy would have arrested him had they found out about his activities. Rather, they would have declared him persona non grata. Likewise, the US government would not have executed him, either. Rather, they would have done what they eventually did do -- transferred him and put an end to his career. None of this isn't to say that Bingham wasn't a great man or to denegrate his sacrifice or what he accomplished. Risking your career and reputation to help people you don't know certainly qualifies as heroic. It's just to say that he misses the award by a technicality because (unlike Varian Fry, a civilian without diplomatic immunity), he was unlikely to be executed for his activities. Epstein's Mother (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 10:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)