Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Romania B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Wikipedia Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Wikipedia Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joodongjin87, Micaya1, Isabellewolpert, Ara.cho (article contribs).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

There is no section about the criticism and controversies surrounding this person. He has been criticised by many prominent figures and has made many statements that many would find - and have found - outrageous and ridiculous (stuff like a rule that Jews outside of Israel should never criticise Israel, and the argument that Jerusalem must be 'above politics' and belong to the Jews because Scripture). Most recently Max Blumenthal (https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/huge-part-elie-wiesels-legacy-being-whitewashed) brought up a lot of those things, but many others like Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn and Corey Robin have criticised him before. Normally such controversies and criticisms are included in Wikipedia articles about persons, but not here; their absence deceives the reader that they do not exist and maintains some kind of saintly aura around the subject. I see in the archives of this talk page that many of them have been mentioned and sourced here before, yet in one way or another the biased editors have managed to keep them out. Overall, the history and present state of this article are an excellent example of the way Wikipedia often simply doesn't work. --94.155.68.202 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criticism section on the French version of this article that is detailed and reliably sourced. There is no reason why this section should be suppressed on the English version of this article. --Ice cave (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC) — Ice cave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Suppressed"? Each Wikipedia is a separate entity, run by the people who edit there. There is no formal relationship between French Wikipedia and English Wikipedia except in that both are hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and, for legal reasons, must follow basic WMF policies. There is no requirement that any language's Wikipedia must carry any of the content of another language's Wikipedia, because their local policies and practices are different. So, nothing has been "suppressed".

If you want to translate the French Wikipedia section and post it here, it will be examined by the editors here for its compliance with English Wikipedia's rules and policies -- however, even though foreign language references are allowed, I do not recommend that you transfer the section with only Franch language refs, since it would mean that the section -- which is almost certain to be controversial -- cannot be vetted by English language editors. I would suggest that you find English-language sources to replace the French=language ones.

Also, articles translated from another Wikipedia to English Wikipedia are required, because of licensing and copyright concerns, to be labelled as having been translated. For further information, see WP:TFOLWP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, thank you for this helpful information and clarification. This was something I'd wondered about Wikipedia in different languages for some time. I'll look into the section and its sources, though I'm sure there's someone more qualified here. Ice cave (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical style guidelines (WP:POSTNOM) are very clear that a bio article should attach postnominals to the subject's name only if the subject is otherwise closely associated with the issuing entity (in this case, the British sovereign). Mr. Wiesel had no such association. Please take a moment to review the guidelines. Thank you. 66.87.118.54 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POSTNOM concerns the lede section, not the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. Current infobox image

B. Suggested replacement

Reverting elaborately explained edits without an explanation is unhelpful. Even worse, it is rather rude. If I took the time to explain why I thought File:Elie Wiesel 1998.jpg to be superior to File:Elie Wiesel 2012 Shankbone.JPG, I believe I deserved a similar explanation from the dissenting party. This kind of summary made me wonder: "So, what is your point?" Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rude shmude. Please explain why the only color picture of Wiesel, and the most recent, should be replaced with yet another taken at about the same time period as others already in the article. s the party wishing to make a replacement, the onus is on you to provide a coherent explanation and gather a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently contains 0 photographs of Wiesel from the 1990s. In contrast, it contains three from the later half of the 2000s. The article also contains 2 other color pictures. Are we looking at the same page? There is no requirement that the infobox image should be the most recent one; MOS:LEADIMAGE stipulates it should be a representative one. I have explained why the 1998 portrait is of higher quality: it is of a higher resolution and with less things going on in the background, with the subject's face in focus. And I do not mind discussing. What I mind is having my explained edits reverted without an explanation, as if I were a common vandal. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the edit box on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the bit about the only color pic -- obviously I was completely wrong in my memory of the page. And, no, there is no requirement that the infobox image be the most recent; indeed I have argued that better images replace more recent ones. However, "better" doesn't necessarily mean "higher resolution", it means "a better portrayal of what the subject looks or looked like", and in this case, in my opinion, the current image does that job better.

Why not simply add the image you prefer to the article somewhere? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your position more clearly. I must admit I was becoming slightly annoyed by the brevity! :) Resolution is an important criterium when I judge how well an image portrays a person, but not the only one. I also expect the lead image in a biography to be from the subject's "prime" years. In this case, to be fair, that would probably be late 1980s, when he received the Nobel Prize. Our only photograph from that period, however, is rather poor. Another reason I prefer the 1998 image to the 2012 one is that the former shows a man still vigorous and smiling, the fighter we would expect to see, while the latter depicts him already rather tired. I think we can do him more justice :) Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can we please use version B? It's a better image for the infobox, he looks much livelier. Sro23 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, can you really ignore Sro23's enthusiastic plea? :D Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't ignore a consensus, and when we have one, I'll go with the flow, but we're not there yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll summon the other top contributors to this article to weigh in. Those active in this month are SlimVirgin, Light show, Denisarona, LOL, Sluzzelin, DMacks, and Muboshgu. What say you? Surtsicna (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK with me, although I see no reason to limit it to the last month, so from here, I'm adding User:GabrielF, User:DBaba, User:Yourai, User:Khoikhoi, User:Jayjg, User:The Thing That Should Not Be, User:Chuunen Baka, User:Lawilkin2, User:Harej, User:FlakJacqueline, User:Yoninah, User:SubirGrewal, User:Rmhines, User:Wikidemon, User:Larryjhs, and User:Squiddy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a bit too unrealistic to expect a response from users who have not been active for 12 years, but I guess it does not hurt to try :D Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to ping) I have a slight yet distinct preference for the b&w image (i.e. Elie Wiesel 1998.jpg). Greater resolution, no distracting truncated "Marriott Rewards" in the background. Clutter in the background can add to the narrative quality of a topic's image (see for example my replacing a cropped image of Harlan Ellison in this diff), but I don't see that being the case here.

Strong caveat: This is merely my untrained intuition speaking, and I have no knowledge of or experience with WP's policies on images. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sluzzelin. I think intuition is all we are asking for here. By the way, there exists a color version of the (B) image as well, if that makes any difference. I have asked the photographer if he would release that one too. Surtsicna (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very interested in seeing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it here. Hopefully it will soon be on the Commons as well. Surtsicna (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like that much better than the b&w version, probably even better than the current infobox image. Maybe there's a solution in the offing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the color version in the infobox, as long as we can keep the current image somewhere in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw myself pinged here. I prefer the image with the red background, because it looks more like the way we remember Elie Wiesel from his later years, when he won major honors. The b/w image doesn't look like him at all... Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like B colorized. A looks a little schlubby for my infobox tastes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the discussion, but I also prefer B colorized. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPintea (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)There was never-ever such a thing as Romanian-run death camps, not in Romania-Old Kingdom, not even in recently (then) re-conquered Basarabia. That, if we apply the right definition, a death-camp = a camp designed for planned mass murder, for implementation of the Holocaust. The only camp in Basarabia, was just a prison, where Jews were imprisoned, some for purely ethnic reasons, (and that was definitely a bad thing), but not only. Some were imprisoned after being rightly or wrongly accused of having commmitted acts of violence against Romanian Army (see the shooting of soldiers en route to the front in Iasi and the blowing up of Romanian Army HQ, in Oct 22 1941 after the official capitulation, in which 68 military were killed, the majority of them high ranking officers anmong which a German general. The attack was orchestrated by NKVD who apparently planted false evidence that the responsible people for the attack were local Jews. Followed the Odessa Massacre, where Jews hostages were killed (another bad thing, but not all the hostages were Jews). Regretably people died in that Basarabia camp, innocent people too, but it never was by planned mass execution like in other dead camps, not by gas, not by shooting or other means. The greatest number of victims were after a typhus epidemics, before the dismantling of the camp in 1943, a disease for which at the time there was no cure. It was the only concentration camp in the world closed during the war. The allegation that 280 000 Jews were killed in Romanian-run death camps is completely untrue and absolutely ridiculous. At that time, there was no such number of Jews left in the whole of Basarabia, Transnistria and Odessa together. Everybody from Wiesel Commission 2003 (financed by Romanian authorities, to add insult to injury), seems to conveniently forget the Stalin's purges and deportation of the majority of local Jews, immediately after he got Bassarabia, by the infamous Ribbentrop - Molotov pact. Besides, the Holocaust, as a dramatic event, was thouroughly investigated, in minute detail, and the chance that Elie Wiesel, not a historian himself, would "discover" sixty years after the war an additional 280 000 victims and previously unrecorded Romanian-run death camps is a statistic impossibility. This was rather a personal score settling for his own suffering in Sighet, his home town, for which he blamed the Romanians all his life, oonsciously or unconsciously omitting the fact that the city was under Hungarian, not Romanian administration anymore, according to the same Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. All these infamous accusation are in fact an effect of the Holocaust Industry phenomenon, Romania being forced to pay many millions to the in "compensation", in 2004, to be admitted as a honorary member of European Community. "Compensation" for the fact that Romanian territory was a Jewish sanctuary during the war. And despite the fact that the much-demonized Antonescu regime actively saved at least 425 000 Jews, flatly refusing to surrender them to German authority to be deported and killed. Antonescu himself was subjected to humiliations, having for instance to travel to Berlin twice in one month in 1940, to explain again why the Romanian Jews could not be deported. Despite Jews having in Romania, for the whole duration of the war, political representation, continous active cultural life (Jewish schools open, Jewish-authors plays on stage all the time, Jewish businesses open), despite the Antonescu regime granting them exemption from military service and even pensions for all Jewish people that worked at least 5 years in Romania between 1919-1939, even if that person did not apply for Romanian citizenship. Despite that after losing the North Transylvania by R-M pact, Romanian cacelaries worked day and night for weeks on end, issuing blank passports, so that people from the lost territory could glue a photograph, write a name and come South to safety. Interesting also how Romanian detractors multiplied in exponential fashion after 1990-s, when there were less and less living witnesses that owed their life to the afore-mentioned acts and deeds. Proof again that truly no good action is left unpunished. Otherwise I fully subscribe to condemning the removal of the "criticism" section of this article. I do have compassion for Ellie Wiesel and his ordeal, bur nothing gives him the right of pointing an accusing finger in the wrong direction. Calling a people and a country who helped and saved "criminal", painting deliberately the white in black, is an abomination in the eyes of God ! It surprises and it pains us to see such gigantesque blunders promoted by such smart people as the Jewish people. You lose support, credibility and allies by this, Jewish brothers ! And you need them today more than anytime in the past GPintea (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, does this relate to some text in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]