Talk:Elie Wiesel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Elie Wiesel is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Headline text

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] Columbus

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

---

[edit] Misc.

I did a little to add to an article that made little sense. Much more work needed here.....DW

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. ~~

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Criticism

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[1]

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.[2]

"


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)