Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
24.189.41.10 (talk)
Nixon Now (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
5,587 edits
Line 77: Line 77:


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

== Molestation allegations ==

The allegations concerning Wiesel have now been published in [https://www.thejc.com/news/world/elie-wiesel-molested-me-new-york-geneticist-says-1.446445 The Jewish Chronicle], [http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/elie-wiesel-grabbed-my-bum/ The Times of Israel], [https://www.dailydot.com/irl/elie-wiesel-groped-photo/ The Daily Dot], and [https://www.salon.com/2017/10/23/elie-wiesel-sexual-assault-medium-jenny-listman/ Salon]. One editor removed them on the basis of BLP arguing that BLP still applies if one has died recently, however, a) Wiesel died over a year ago and b) the claims have now been published in several credible publications. [[User:Nixon Now|Nixon Now]] ([[User talk:Nixon Now|talk]]) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:01, 23 October 2017

Template:Vital article

Deletions from the Talk Page

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elie Wiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesel and Palestinians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Molestation allegations

The allegations concerning Wiesel have now been published in The Jewish Chronicle, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot, and Salon. One editor removed them on the basis of BLP arguing that BLP still applies if one has died recently, however, a) Wiesel died over a year ago and b) the claims have now been published in several credible publications. Nixon Now (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F806719751
No tags for this post.