Talk:Simon Wiesenthal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Featured Article

Simon Wiesenthal isn't a featured article anymore in The Netherlands, maybe someone can fix that?

Grammar

Somebody fix the grammar - there are multiple uses of second-person and other grammatical errors.

Better

The enthusiasm about the point of view of mr Walters lead someone to write a "bad" introduction (first:written in poor english.Second: nonsensed in the introcduction).I removed becuase I guess it is much better, and more in Wiki usual format, to give it into a dedicated section.Like it is in "Criticism" Corrado

citation

The letter in question:

(We can only hope)

Justin is writing a research paper on it

IN HIS Feb. 13 column, "Sgro took last kick at the can," Peter Worthington quotes the Nazi war crime researcher and chronicler Simon Wiesenthal as having stated "prior to his death" that any Nazi war criminals of significance would now be too old and infirm to stand trial. I took the liberty of checking the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia for confirmation of this. Mr. Wiesenthal did say this in April 2003 upon his retirement. However, there is no mention of Mr. Wiesenthal having died.

Alan Tallmeister

Unionville

This article was also meta-referenced in http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26346, where they discussed the defacement by "Nazis" after Mr. Wiesenthal's death. nae'blis _(talk) 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Immigration to US?

When did he immigrate to US? Immediately after his liberation in 1945? --Menchi 07:11, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Wiesenthal never emigrated to the US. He has been living in Austria since the end of the war.

But there's another thing which has been recently added and should be improved: The Simon Wiesenthal Center was not really established "after the war" (according to the ikipedia entry, it was in 1977), and I don't think Wiesenthal himself founded it and named it after himself. Does anyone know details? --KF 16:45, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, the Center was founded by Rabbi Marvin Hier with Wiesenthal's participation. GabrielF 19:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

I have made some significant additions to this article. Please copyedit and comment. I also removed the Controversy section that User:Cautious put in. The Simon Wiesenthal Center's Operation Last Chance (or whatever its called) does not belong here because it was initiated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, not Wiesenthal himself after Wiesenthal retired, a NPOV discussion belongs either in its own separate article or on Simon Wiesenthal Center. GabrielF 19:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Photos

GabrielF: Can you please cease erasing the information with photographic evidence of Wiesenthal's fraud? I know the source is biased but it still prevents photographic evidence with comparison to the drawing and photographs.

An even clearer image: http://www.ukar.org/lifeguy1.jpg

There is a difference between a "biased" source and a neo-nazi source. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for pushing propaganda, especially when the inclusion of such vile propaganda would deligitimize wikipedia. There have been many cases where links to neo-nazi websites have been removed from articles. GabrielF 16:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't care, if it is propaganda, as long as it promotes "the Holocaust". So please, a balanced view (including a revisionist one) would be helpful.

Please do not fall for the Ad Hominem fallacy. Whether or not the information is from a neo-nazi source does not mean the source is fake--by all means my sources provide photographic evidence of fraud that should not be dismissed outright. I know you are Jewish and the Holocaust is dear to you, but I am the son of a Polish survivor of the death camps and I try to remain as unbiased as possible in regards to the Holocaust--we should not censor Holocaust deniers but debate them.... After all, truth is on our side, correct? If there is misconduct on our side, we must highlight it as to not be liars and defamers.

Thank you for discussing this issue respectfully, unfortunately I don't have time to respond to this now - but I will say that the ukar.org site is no more pallettable than the last one. The author of the site has a pretty obvious anti-semitic agenda, I only poked around for a few minutes and found this:

From the beginning of the affair, it could not escape notice that this broadcast was not only an attack upon Ukrainians and upon the nation of Ukraine, but that it was a Jewish attack, this because every last person bearing responsibility for the broadcast, from the very top of the chain of command to the very bottom, was Jewish:

This site has shown no evidence of credibility or legitimacy. It may surprise you to learn that I am no fan of Simon Wiesenthal but I believe that accusations against people must meet a certain standard of legitimacy before they can be included on wikipedia - every nasty thing someone has to say about someone is noteworthy enough to go into an article.

What a joke. Mr Prytulak is considered Bias, yet every and any slander made by a jew is justified and objective. Give me a break. He has a clearly anti-semitic agenda you say? I wonder if you even bothered reading the articles, the only thing that was clear to me was the continuing slander and libel of the Ukraine and Ukrainians by Mr. Weisenthal, among others, to which he obviously had personal feelings toward and wished to address, since the Ukraine doesn't have millions of dollars and countless organizations to defend their goodname, all they have is bulwarks like Mr. Prytulak, who is all too easily delegitimized by heavy hitters like Mr. Wiesenthal, and apparently Wikipedia.

basically your a dumb idiot who is a neo-nazi suckup! to whoever originally posted this!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maskedman133 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

quotes regarding Serbs and Croats

http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/yds/1997/97-05-22.yds.html#02 says:

"Serbs saved Jews many times, Croats did not, i know that. We have always had sympathies for Serbs. They have written to me from the society of Serbian*Jewish friendship in New York, saying they could not understand why the whole world held only Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic responsible for crimes in Bosnia," Wiesenthal told [Sarajevo review Slobodna Bosna].

"The Serbian Army fought against nazis in World War Two, the majority of the Yugoslav partisans were Serbs. There were a few Croats. Nazis immediately created the "Independent state of Croatia" which was ruled by the ustasha and Ante Pavelic. They fought together with nazis against Serbs and Yugoslavia," Wiesenthal said in conclusion.

Some of these quotes would be patently wrong and rather insulting, given the hundred registered Righteous from Croatia, and the thousands of recorded Partisans from Croatia as well.

I've found quotes from this interview only at one other website and nowhere else. The newspaper [www.slobodna-bosna.ba Slobodna Bosna] allows access to the archive to subscribers only, so I can't verify the original article. Anyone else? --Joy [shallot] 20:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not vandalize

I just wanted to clear my name. I did not vandalize this page at all. I saw there was a swastika & I removed it. I then got a message on my screen asking me to stop. Was what I did wrong? I love Wikipedia & thought the swastika was an act of vandalism. I removed it. Was I not supposed to? My IP is 64.231.208.60

Looks like this was a misunderstanding, as the picture of Wiesenthal had evidently been replaced by a swastika and then you removed it from the page, prompting someone else to think you were just removing the picture of him. Thanks very much for removing the vandalism and our apologies if this has put you off Wikipedia at all. It's always very welcome when readers fix vandalism they come across, and occasionally mistakes are made by editors checking the edit history to see who was responsible for the vandalism and who fixed it. Thanks again. 86.134.215.88 19:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree that placing the swastika there is smear and simply childish. But critical articles should be place on the page. I.e.: [http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/9/4/Weber439-452.html] . Or has anybody a problem with that.

I do and have removed it, SqueakBox 17:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And what is your problem with this?

Looks on brief examination to be a pro Nazi type criticism, SqueakBox 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

More references needed?

Hello, I just noticed that the only references listed refer to the criticism that Wiesenthal received. I'm not so well documented to comment on the relevance of these critics, but I cannot help to think that maybe a more balanced list of references would be useful. This way, one gets an impression of Wiesenthal being a controversial and possibly fraud figure, which should be adequately balanced, I think. It seems to me that he is usually credited with an higher moral position, or am I wrong??

Francesco

I also have a problem with the shape of the entire article at this moment. Unlike many other Wiki bios, versions of the word 'claim' are inserted everywhere as if Wiesenthal can't be trusted with his own biography. This is fine if there's sourced historical inaccuracies that question dates but making the whole of his life questionable isn't Wikipedia standard or caliber. It's also important that this article be protected from neo-Nazi trolls. It's a shame a Wiesenthal scholar hasn't been able to do something here.

Parker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.203.63 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Article about vandalism of this article in The Age (Australia)

Does the story Website denigrates Wiesenthal, in the Sydney Morning Herald, refer to this article? - 129.94.6.28 04:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Bit disappointing to blame wikipedia for the vandalism. What do they want to do? Shut down wikipedia, ie ban open source editing in the name of respect, SqueakBox 04:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have nopted it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Newspaper report on vandalism at Simon Wiesenthal, SqueakBox 04:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own main page discusses the dangers of slander and libel. Insulting someone's memory in such disgusting fashion would be tantamount to defamation of character, and knowing Australia's laws protecting personal integrity, it could make that editor a target for a suit. --Michaelk 04:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Relax.

The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald (which share content) ran an article talking about the vandalism. They didn't suggest that Wiki's editors were involved, just that the vandalism occured, that it was fixed by other users and that a Jewish organisation complained about it. They then go on to mention the vandalism of that pope dude and quote Jimmy Wales: "Such pranks are a little disappointing, but given how insane the whole idea is in the first place - that you could let anybody edit any page - it's a miracle that so little vandalism goes on," (sic). Nothing to be concerned about, SqueakBox - BlackPawn@e2 --203.97.27.126 05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but look at th headline; it's not "Vandals denigrate..." it's "Website denigrates..." The insinuation that it's somehow the Wikipedia's fault is in the headline.--82.152.177.71 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Rather strange but I could find no reference to the edits referred to in The Age article. As one might expect this article has been very heavily edited over the last two days with changes every few minutes. I was curious to see if such a version of the page existed and how long it stayed. I appreciate a sysop may have permanently removed the edit. It would be nice if a message was left on the talk page that the edit history had been tampered with.--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, and in the interests of transparency, the edit complained of was added by an anon, 66.99.233.35 (talk · contribs), at 00:15, 21 September 2005 and was reverted three minutes later by another anon, 151.205.126.213 (talk · contribs), at 00:18, 21 September 2005, with the comment Reverting vandalism. The edit was deleted by Mindspillage at 04:20, 21 September 2005, with the comment removing one revision upon request. (All of these times may be BST (essentially UTC+1) rather than UTC.)

So the journalist either spotted the edit within those three minute, or was surfing the edit history in the subsequent 4 hours, or someone else was and sent them the screenshot. Someone it not a friend of Wikipedia, I think :-/ There is some commentary at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Newspaper report on vandalism at Simon Wiesenthal. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had an email exchange with Josh Landis, who is quoted in the article. I've posted it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Newspaper report on vandalism at Simon Wiesenthal and I'm curious to her people's comments. GabrielF 12:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has done far more than any other general-interest internet resource in documenting human rights abuses and countering neonazi disinformation. It has done this by trusting ordinary people from around the world, the vast majority of whom are decent, honest, caring, thoughtful folk, who must contend with the handful that are hateful bigots.--Pharos 19:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have also written to Landis, pointing out that he is attacking the wrong target, SqueakBox 19:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

(removed)

Hence the above contributor's need to hide behind anonymity to preotect themselves from the evil forces of "Z.O.G."? Lisiate 23:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong Lisiate. Anonymity would involve creating an account, leaving your IP address on your edits leaves a trail which in the case of static IP's can lead directly back to the contributor, and will in any case give their location away. I removed the comment anyway because we don't have to tolerate racial abuse, SqueakBox 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps but the anon didn't even sign with an IP address. Lisiate 00:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, all edits are logged in the history, so the IP address of the person who added the comment can be determined. Creating an account provides more, not less, anonymity. Signing is just a help to readers, it is the revision history that defines who wrote what. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not mention the case of Frank Walus?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Wiesenthal+Walus&meta= Shouldn't that be added!?

As Golbenz just said on the incidents page, if they are going to sue for anti-semitism they need to start with Google. Maybe wikipedia should sue the website for claiming that wikipedia has denigrated Weisanthal when we have done nothing of the kind, SqueakBox 17:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Walus case has been added, i.e. the link now works. I think the link to the Toronto Times is better placed on the Walus link itself, as it adds nothing to the sentence (the story as outlined in the link itself is actually inaccurate). As so, I have removed it again. 158.42.10.44 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity?

I'm concerned that this section (in Early Life) isn't up to Wikipedia's standards of objectivity. Anyone want to rewrite, or should I remove it completely?

"Sadly, that fact is generally ignored by those who have made Ukrainophobia a going concern, including more than a few obituary writers. Everyone should mourn the passing of a Ukrainian of Jewish heritage righteous enough to insist that the many millions of non-Jews who perished in the Holocaust deserve to be remembered no less than its Jewish victims."

-Nick

• Yes, I already removed this exact passage a while ago. The writer had made their point better in adding the fact about the Ukrainian auxiliary policeman who had helped save Wiesenthal's life.--Pharos 21:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• <REMOVED>
  • It is notable that the above slimy piece of s**t in human form didn't even care to read the article. :-)
    • What was on the article about? if it relates to Wiesenthal, I'd be interested.

Discussion moved from my talk

What's wrong with my contribution? However, he was never prosecuted for his self supposed role in the crime of the Eichmann kidnapping and his alleged cooperation with the Mossad which is a crime under Austrian law. I find this fact worth mentioning.

• —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.13.176.205 (talk • contribs) 15:02, December 27, 2005

• It is clearly not WP:NPOV. ...crime of the Eichmann kidnapping.... ...alleged cooperation with the Mossad which is speculation. If it can be made NPOV, I have no real issues with it. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, kidnapping and crime is redundant anyway, and there is no doubt that he cooperated with the Mossad in some way, only if the information he provided was helpfull to the Mossad remains unclear. So let's say: However, he was never prosecuted for his self supposed role in the Eichmann kidnapping and his cooperation with the Mossad which is a crime under Austrian law.

• —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.13.176.205 (talk • contribs) 13:29, December 29, 2005

• • I think this belongs on the article talk page. I'll create a copy there. Personally I don't think discussion of a prosecution that never happened is encyclopedic. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think non-prosecution is worth mentioning when you would expect prosecution under normal circumstances. Cases of mentioned non-prosecutions in Wikipedia can be found in articles about Heinrich Gross and Ante Gotovina and certainly in many others. --195.34.133.69 01:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Both of those you mentioned were prosecuted or are being prosecuted. Failing to be caught or being prosecuted and aquitted are different than charges never even being filed. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gotovina's non-prosecution in Croatia is mentioned in the article. Of course Gotovina, unlike Wiesenthal, was prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It's also true, that Heinrich Gross was prosecuted and even condemned for his crimes in 1950. The time of non-prosection for the next 55 years is unfortunately only mentioned implicitly in the german wikipedia. The prosecutor dropped the case which - in legal terms - means that he was not prosecuted after 1950.

The difference between those cases and Wiesenthal is that they were prosecuted sometime by someone, while Wiesenthal was NEVER prosecuted by anyone for the Eichmann kidnapping. But this does not mean that it is not worth mentioning by whom, all three of them, were NOT prosecuted altough law would require prosecution or it is hard to understand why somebody is not prosecuted. Of course there is no second case Wiesenthal with exactely the same story. So I searched for articles about people who were NEVER PROSECUTED and for who this is mentioned in wikipedia. I found the following articles: Frank Vandenbroucke Lud Ullman Antonia Rachbauer Jane Bernigau Eleonore Poelsleitner Betty Hanneschlaeger --217.13.176.205 10:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• See this is all original research and conjecture. We are neither Austrian prosecutors nor lawyers. This strikes me a simply a thinly veiled attempt to be anti-Wiesenthal. One reason he could have not been prosecuted is that he did not break the law. Given that we simply don't know, unless someone has documentation from the appropriate prosecutors for the time, I don't think it belongs. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nazi hunter

The article Nazi hunter is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi hunter. Perhaps a category would be more appropriate? --Aleph4 17:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Simon Wiesental

Wiesenthal, Simon (1908-2005), was an Austrian Jew who helped bring more than 1,100 Nazi war criminals to justice. In 1961, he founded the Jewish Documentation Center in Vienna, Austria. The center, which Wiesenthal directed until 2003, collected evidence about the murders of approximately 6 million Jews and millions of other persons by the Nazis during World War II (1939-1945). It also gathered information on the location of Nazis who had avoided capture. Wiesenthal helped bring to trial such former Nazi officers as Adolf Eichmann, who directed the removal of Jews to concentration camps, and Karl Silberbauer, who arrested Anne Frank (see Frank, Anne). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.27.209 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

NPOV?

I know hindsight is 20/20, but to me, contemporarily, this guy sounds like he was just a rogue kid with political exemption running around ganking nazi's to take them to be clipped at Neuremberg. I only say it in this way on the grounds that every war that's happened in my life has had a crapload of blatent lies, propaganda, and the eventually mass capture and execution of randoms with aggrandized roles to satiate the blood lust of the masses for 'justice'. The good old eye for an eye mentality. However, that being said, I found this article to be extremely POV in one direction and that it didn't address the .. eccenstricity and abnormality of his actions as a whole. I'd never say he did a good thing, but I can see where he'd be coming from having gone through everything he did. But addressing perhaps the fact that in contemporary society stalking, abducting, extraditing and trying under an ad hoc kangaroo court then finally executing 80 year olds is kind of whack. I don't care if they're ted bundy, there comes a time when you do yourself a dishonour by hauling them in rather than leaving them to the creator as the final judge, jury and executioner. I dunno, this article just didn't sit right with me. Jachin 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the most retarded things I've ever read, Jachin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.203.63 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiesenthal was again treated as a second class citizen

Any details? Xx236 14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

the section Criticisms

this section, particularly the second half seems a bit disjointed, and the quote at the end seems rather long and doesn't really add very much, as it begins by stating that he isn't familiar with the exact criticism.

I have had a go creating a Frank Walus stub, which gives details about the case, and its use as a cause celebre. It should be added in a day or two. It can replace the link to the denier rubbish, as outlined in the link in an earlier section on this page. Paul haynes 15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have extended the information taken from the Guy Walters article to include his affirmation that he was not denying the quality of Wiesenthal's efforts to bring war criminals to justice, simply questioning the accuracy of Wiesenthal's accounts of his wartime experiences and education. I believe that this brings a better balance to this section. Zerosprite (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

His studies

According to SW he didn't obtain his degree in Prague, he was accepred into third yesr in Lwów where he got his degree.Xx236 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Spelling Error?

Why are there two different spellings of the same name?

"Another Head SS man named Kohlrautzgave him two pistols to hide in his office and kept them a secret."

"At the Front of the camp stood Kohlrauts. He was saved, again."

Are these two different individuals, or the same individual spelled two different ways?

Count of Cascadia 17:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Racism against Nazis

This article that said "nazi hunter" was very descriminatory, offensive and created a false sense of superiority. We all know that the nazis "hunted" way more jews than vice versa. Not being racist, just saying this article should be less biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.38.48 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's Birthday Anecdote

The anecdote about shooting 44 jews for hitler's birthday is at least questionable in it accuracy since apr 20 1943 would have been hitler's 54th bday.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Guy Walters on Wiesenthal at Lvov

Evidently Walters says "Some biographies say he gained a diploma as an architectural engineer at Lvov polytechnic in Poland, but the Lvov state archives have no record of his having studied there". However, that doesn't seem to be surprise, and makes me wonder about Walters' research, as the Encyclopedia of Holocaust literature By David Patterson, Alan L. Berger, Sarita Cargas says "Refused admission to the Polytechnic Institute in Lvov because of restrictions on admitting Jewish students, the author went to the Technical University of Prague, and to the University of Lemberg. where he received a degree in architectural engineering. He married Cyla Mueller in 1939 and worked as an architect in Lemberg. Arrested in 1941." Encyclopedia of Holocaust literatureDougweller (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that they taught Architecture at Lviv University before the war. I was taught at the Polytechnic. However, many Lvovites studied in Prague because of the ethnic quoya for students. Bandurist (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Guy Walters writes: Lemberg and Lvov are the same place. Wiesenthal never studied at Lvov/Lemberg. No need to wonder at my research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.95.39 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A problem I've found from checking a large number of websites is that most (99% would be very little exaggeration) can be traced back to Wiesenthal himself as the primary source (wording gives most away) and readers largely accept these claims as truth because so many reliable sources support each other. That he did good work is not disputed and the world is better for his efforts but care should be taken with even the best reliable sources. While I can't vouch for everything he wrote, Walters work has stood up from what I've been able to determine so far from other sources. Wayne (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Guy Walters writes: My sources for Wiesenthal's education (or lack of it) are the institutions themselves. It's perhaps easiest if I simply cut and paste the relevant extract from my book below:

Wiesenthal instead enrolled at the Czech Technical University in Prague in 1928. ‘It was a new world for me,’ Wiesenthal recalled. ‘There were more than 30,000 foreign students.’ [...] Wiesenthal’s studies went less well. Although he matriculated on 21 February 1929, Wiesenthal never completed his architecture degree. He passed his first state examination on 15 February 1932, and then he left that same year. Most biographies – including that on the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s website – state that Wiesenthal did graduate from the Czech Technical University. At this point, the nature of Wiesenthal’s further education grows distinctly murky. According to some biographies – all of which were published during their subject’s lifetime – Wiesenthal was eventually allowed to enter Lviv Technical University in either 1934 or 1935, from where in 1939, seven years after he left Prague, he gained his Polish diploma as an architectural engineer. However, the Lviv State Archives have no record of Simon Wiesenthal having studied at Lviv Technical University. The archives have records for other students, but not for Wiesenthal. Nevertheless, Wiesenthal was to claim fraudulently throughout his life that he did have a diploma – his letterheads proudly display it – but there were some who had their justified doubts. Tuviah Friedman recalled how when he first met Wiesenthal, ‘he presented himself as a chartered engineer whose diploma was lost in the concentration camps’. Wiesenthal told his comrade that he had studied in Prague, but Friedman ‘never understood why he couldn’t get a copy of his diploma from Prague’. And, even if Friedman’s memory is at fault concerning Prague, it is hard to understand why Wiesenthal could not get a copy of his diploma from Lviv. Curiously, in one of his earlier memoirs, The Murderers Among Us, there is no mention of Wiesenthal having attended any form of educational establishment in Lviv. His supposed studies at the Technical University in that city are only mentioned in later accounts. If Simon Wiesenthal was not studying in Lviv from the mid-1930s until the war, what was he doing? Without a diploma, he could not have been a practising architect, a fact which is further supported by the absence of his name in the definitive pre-war Katalog Architektów i Budowniczych (Catalogue of Architects and Builders). A curriculum vitae Wiesenthal completed after the war states that he worked as a supervisor in a table factory in Lviv until December 1939, on a wage of eight hundred zlotys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guywalters (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't wikipedia have a policy against authors writing their own independent research into articles? Even if it's printed, this author is still really just quoting his own independent research to have his own name in the article for someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.227.10 (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Guy Walters writes: But that's not what I've done. I haven't contributed anything to the article proper - just this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.163.147 (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional characters based on

"Dramatic portrayals" is a very nice section and I appreciate the information therein. I was wondering, would it be a good idea to include a section listing some characters inspired/based on Wiesenthal?

Olivier's Liebermann from "The Boys From Brazil" is only one example. I can think of others, but I know there's a weird policy here about mentioning films/characters in a situation like this. Someone please advise.

I jump back in to clarify: the thing is, not only would my idea be more inspirational, but this list is mainly portrayals of Wiesenthal - what I mean is characters based on him but not meant to be portrayals of Simon Wiesenthal. Such as Olivier's character. There are others.75.21.113.40 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

ISP edits

For several months now various ISPs have been deleting content ([see here]) they consider to be innuendos in negative tone, just to discredite Wiesenthal. The text in question has been in the article for several years, is reliably sourced and supported by primary sources such as government records and in many cases, Wiesenthal's own writings. The research and conclusions are supported by most academics. The Wiener Library has accepted the material as factual. If anyone has any concerns regarding the text please bring it up here for discussion. Wayne (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The material that is being removed is actually all sourced to one source: the book Hunting Evil by Guy Walters. There needs to be collaboration of these facts from a variety of sources and biographers, not just the one book. And it needs to be written in a more neutral tone. The article has the potential to go to GA if these concerns are addressed. -- Dianna (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The book is so far one of only two biographies of Wiesenthal written after his death. The other was written by Tom Segev. I have not read it, but from the reviews that I have read it appears to support Walters in saying things like there was a "lack of evidence" for some of his claims, that Wiesenthal took credit that belonged to others and that he had a "tendency to fantasize". If some one has read Segev's book they can easily add that as a reference. There were a few newspaper articles as secondary sources but they have dissapeared from the article. The primary sources corroborating Walters are all government documents etc such as Lviv Polytechnic archives, Polish records and Wiesenthal's own post war testimony. None of these are online but Daniel Finkelstein for one has described Walters' research as "impeccable". In regards to having nothing to do with Eichman's arrest, we have several books supporting this so we could use one of those. As far as Walter's claims are concerned there is little doubt they are reliable facts. How would you rewrite the following disputed text to be more neutral?

• Although Wiesenthal claimed he graduated in 1932 and most biographies repeat his claim, he did not complete his degree.
• However, Lviv archives have no record of his having studied there.
• However, Polish records indicate he never registered or worked as a builder or architect and the résumé Wiesenthal himself wrote at the end of the war stated that he was working as a supervisor in a Lviv furniture factory from 1935 to December 1939.
• This account is contradicted by documentation. In 1945, Wiesenthal testified to war-crimes investigators that he had been arrested on July 13, after the executions had ceased, and managed to escape "through a bribe" before the executions resumed.
• There is no corroboration for the above account. In Wiesenthal’s testimony to the War crime investigators in May 1945, he does not mention these incidents or Kohlrautz’s part in them, and neither were the events included in an affidavit he made in August 1954, recounting his wartime experiences. He did, however, mention senior inspector Kohlrautz in both, stating that he was killed in the battle for Berlin in April 1945. Wiesenthal later told his biographers that Kohlrautz had been killed on the Russian front in 1944.
• Wiesenthal’s own résumé does not mention this work for the Americans, but lists his occupation at the time as the vice-chairman of the Jewish Central Committee for the U.S. zone, based in Linz, Austria. Wayne (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have access to Walters and Segev, and have a copy of Levy on order. It should be here by the end of the month. Segev does corroborate what Walters says about Wiesenthal exaggerating and bending the truth. I think the way I would do it is to change the section header "Criticism" to something more neutral, such as "Autobiographies", and then give some of these instances as examples of the way in which his autobiographies deviate from the known facts. The main body of the article should not use this back-and-forth style ("Wiesenthal said this, but the truth is that"), but present only the known facts without reference to Wiesenthal's interpretations and exaggerations. I would like to wait until my copy of Levy arrives before I begin, though, as Walters uses Levy as one of his sources, and it would be better to cite Levy directly. I will post a note here as soon as the book arrives so that you will be aware when things are going to start happening, and will post any potentially controversial edits here on the talk page before putting them in the article. -- Dianna (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with your suggestions. As I am not getting the other books I'll leave it to you. Wayne (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The book by Levy has arrived, so I will be getting started now with GA prep. I am starting at the top, with "Early life". There won't be anything potentially controversial for a while -- Dianna (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just completed re-working the material on Wiesenthal's credibility and will be pausing for a bit to do some more reading of the sources. Hopefully the way it's presently written will satisfy all interested parties. -- Dianna (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography is the wrong name for the section. We need to find an accurate title. The critism is also too soft. For example it says "contain conflicting stories and tales that may have been invented." There is no "may" about it, stories were fabricated. This flows to the article itself which implies or claims the truth of several events that did not happen to Wiesenthal. For example, according to Segev, the events of April 20, 1943 happened to Leon Wells and did not involve Wiesenthal who appropriated the story for himself. Wayne (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Many stories were fabricated, but some were not, so we have to arrive at a wording that reflects that fact. How about "contain conflicting stories and tales, many of which were invented"? "Bibliography" means "list of books". How about we change the section header to read "List of books and articles by Wiesenthal"? I will be busy with RL stuff for most of the day and will act on your suggestions hopefully this evening. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm not sounding too critical, you are doing a good job so far but perhaps not going as far as you should. Your rewording suggestion sounds good. Instead of Bibliography, how about "Biographical inconsistencies"? Bibliography should be just that...a list of books. Wayne (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive words. Don't worry about sounding critical; it's simpler to address your concerns now, so that you are satisfied with the content when I nominate for GA. "Biographical inconsistencies" is not bad, but it's not so much the biographies that are of concern; it's the autobiographies. Maybe we could use nesting headers such as a level-2 of "Bibliography" with sub-headers reading "Autobiographical inconsistencies" and "List of books and articles by Wiesenthal". I am off to the gym now and errands, and hope to be available to edit this evening. Let me know what you think of this new proposal for the section headers if you have a minute. -- Dianna (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Or how about one section header "Autobiographical inconsistencies" and one "List of books and articles by Wiesenthal" ? Simpler. -- Dianna (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

List of awards and honours

I think the list of awards and honours is big enough that it should be spun off into a separate article. I will go ahead with this change in the next week or two if no objections are raised. Discussion is welcome. -- Dianna (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The proposed new article has now been created, at List of awards received by Simon Wiesenthal. -- Dianna (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I wondered over here for article reading and just reviewed your spin-off mentioned above. I believe it was a good idea. It has enough length and weight to be a separate article. Kierzek (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I only wish it had more sources :/ — Dianna (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Simon Wiesenthal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues here, and then move to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Dianna (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This is really an excellent article. I see almost no problems on my first pass, and the prose carried me along enough that I had to stop and remind myself to read critically. I anticipate this being a pretty speedy pass. I only had a few comments and suggestions:

• Consider adding a direct statement to the lead and/or early life statement that the Wiesenthals were Jewish; it's clearly implied from the beginning (and explicit later on), but definitions of the Holocaust vary to include other groups, so it's not explicit immediately. It seems easier to make it explicit from the beginning.Y
• You might make the Waldheim affair clearer in the lead; it seems worth a full sentence to do this if necessary. On reading the lead, I assumed SW had exposed Waldheim.Y
• " continued to try to locate missing Nazi war criminals, including Adolf Eichmann, Franz Stangl, and others." -- this makes it sound like SW didn't necessarily succeed; I'd suggest adding a sentence or two to make his successes clear in the lead.Y I have clarified the two cases that are directly mentioned in the lead.
• Nice work making the differing versions of SW's life explicit.
• "Assistance involved arranging for forged papers, food supplies, transportation, and so on" -- Wiesenthal's assistance, or assistance to these refugees generally?Y clarified
• " located many Nazi war criminals, about six of whom were arrested as a result of his activities. " -- How are war criminals being defined here, if they weren't arrested or convicted? Were they convicted in absentia by a previous or later court? Or are these individuals that Wiesenthal himself suspected or knew to be guilty? I don't mean to be over legalistic, but this might need slight rephrasing for clarity. (Or perhaps a footnote?)
  • Many suspects were located but not all were brought to trial. I will make it clearer that they were suspects only. Interest in pursuing convictions decreased sharply with the start of the Cold War, for political reasons. I have fleshed this out a bit.
• "Wiesenthal was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, but lost out to Elie Wiesel, likely because of the negative publicity he received as a result of the Waldheim affair." -- I'll defer to your source, of course, but I'm a bit skeptical of this phrasing. A huge number of people are nominated for the Nobel Peace prize each year, and of course few win; is there reason to believe SW was a frontrunner?
  • I will re-phrase this as Segev's opinion.

Okay, I read the original source on Google Books (though some pages were missing, of course). Perhaps you might mention the angle that it was the 40th anniversary of the end of WWII, and the Nobel Committee was thought to be looking for a Holocaust-related laureate; it seems also worth mentioning that Wiesenthal was actively campaigning for the prize. The article isn't overlong (31kb readable prose), so it seems to me that adding a few more sentences here about his Nobel Prize run wouldn't hurt. I'm fine with deferring to your judgement on this, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We certainly have space for a couple more sentences on this topic. It looks like Wiesel did even more lobbying than Wiesenthal.

• That's a great detail about his stamp collection--nice humanizing touch to the article.
• "Ben Kingsley portrayed him in the Home Box Office film Murderers Among Us: The Simon Wiesenthal Story" -- if Ben Kingsley is playing him, does this belong in the paragraph on documentaries? IMDB makes this sound more like a biopic.[1]
  • Unfortunately I have not seen the film so I can't say. But HBO stuff is usually high quality, and IMdB is not considered a reliable source, so I think it's best to leave it as-is.
    • Do we have a source calling it a documentary, though? The given source puts it in the same list as Boys from Brazil, which leaves it ambiguous. The Kingsley pic appears to have been nominated for awards in fiction categories rather than documentary ones [2], and reading a few reviews on Highbeam it sounds like a biopic, though nobody quite says directly. Unless a source calling this a doc is available, perhaps it could just be moved to the previous paragraph, which deals with portrayals by actors? Regardless of what genre it was classified as, it seems like Kingsley's portrayal of SW is the major focus of the film.
      • Okay, I understand your point better now and will move it to the other paragraph.
• Though obvious guesses can be made, it would be interesting to have a quotation or two from SW explicitly discussing his motives in dedicating his life to Nazi hunting, or what he saw as the importance of the work. (I'm not sure the article has any direct quotations from SW, actually.) This isn't needed for the GA criteria, but I was curious about it as a reader.Y

Since this is so close to a pass already, I'll go ahead and start the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• "After members of Mengele's family admitted to authorities in 1985 that he had died, the body was exhumed and his identity was confirmed." -- you might make it clearer that Mengele had apparantly been dead for six years; it wasn't clear to me until I looked at the Segev source that this was a case of SW being wrong for several years. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Y

Hi Khazar2! I believe I have covered all the concerns listed above. Please let me know if you find any further work that needs attention. Thank you for these great suggestions, which have made the article better. -- Dianna (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Job Diannaa. Wayne (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne ! -- Dianna (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Excellent prose; spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	A hearty pass -- thanks for your work on this article, and your quick responses to this review.

"Controversy"

After several months of stability, there's been an odd push the past few days to add the word "controversy" to multiple places, including the first sentence, in place of more neutral and concrete descriptions. "Controversy" is a pretty vague word, and also not one I'm sure is used by our reliable sources. Perhaps "Autobiographical inaccuracies" would address the concern here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. "Autobiographical inaccuracies" sounds like Orwellian speak, and many notable deceased people have "controversy" sections; I don't see why Simon Wiesenthal is supposedly the anointed one, and we must make sure to censor any objective balance that counters this article that acts as a propaganda pamphlet for his organization.

Solntsa90 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're using the term "censorship" here, but the article contains extensive discussion of negative events from Wiesenthal's life: inaccurate memoirs, the Waldheim situation, the Eichmann debate, etc. I seriously doubt that the Wiesenthal center includes these in their fundraising materials.

Anyway, I think this is a fairly well-watched article, so let's get some other opinions. Personally I prefer the more descriptive section title; you can call names and breathe fire about it, but I think it's helpful to be specific and concrete. In any case, thanks for your input. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is garbage, needs revision, completely biased in favor of Wiesenthal's so-called "legacy"

There are far too many examples to give, but here are two as an appetizer:

Walters found many inconsistencies among the three main biographies and between these books and historical documents. "His figure is a complex and important one. If there was a motive for his duplicity, it may well have been rooted in good intentions," he said.

This is still present in the article, despite Walters' most recent opinion being: "In my view, Simon Wiesenthal was a liar and a fraud. In fact, I’d go so far as to say he was one of the biggest conmen of the 20th century."

(Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310725/Why-I-believe-king-Nazi-hunters-Simon-Wiesenthal-fraud.html )

OR

Wiesenthal, a storyteller, was the author of several memoirs that contain tales that are only loosely based on actual events. In particular, he exaggerated his role in the capture of Eichmann in 1960.

Where I'm from, being a "storyteller" who authors tales that are "loosely based on actual events" in which events are "exaggerated" is called Lying, Lying your ass off, and Liar Liar Pants On Fire.

This article lionizes a con-man, and there is no objective balance (I admit I'm not objective in my opinions, but I'm always objective in my wiki edits) in this article, instead reading like a propaganda pamphlet on why you should donate to the Wiesenthal center.

How this article got a "Good article" nomination is beyond me.

Solntsa90 (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, "Liar liar pants on fire" sounds like Good Article material if I've ever heard it. =) Anyway, the problem is, as Walters points out in the source you just added, that Wiesenthal is widely lionized. I don't have strong opinions on him myself, but the article would not be an accurate reflection of existing sources if it didn't significantly cover that aspect.

I do really appreciate your updating Walters' opinion in the article (I actually added a bit more from it if you don't mind). I agree that it's important to note that his opinion changed so much in the year following his book's publication. But don't be too hard on the article's original authors for not knowing that his 2010 opinion was so different from his 2009 opinion. Drawing on the major book-length biographies was an understandable and logical approach, and they don't deserve to be called propagandists for it, or have their work called garbage.

As for as Good Article status goes, you can appeal that at WP:GAR. There's more detailed instructions at that page, and you can get the opinion of some uninvolved editors. Hope this helps! Thanks again for the contributions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha, why I am a bit prone to hyperbole, so my apologies for seeming standoffish and gun-ho; I just get flustered when I see bias staring me in the face, and that opening paragraph plus the justifications of his lies as "being rooted in good intentions" was just too much for me today. That doesn't discount you however, so thank you for your service in contributing to this article though!

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No prob, I appreciate having the extra eyes on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a problem with the addition: The Daily Mail is not considered to be a reliable source. I have taken it out. -- Dianna (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As the "Daily Mail" article was in fact a primary source--the author in question wrote an editorial in--I'm adding the removed part right back in, as it's crucial to the article I believe. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the content again, and here's why:

1. The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source for any purpose on this wiki. In other words, just because the material appeared in the Daily Mail does not prove that Mr Walters actually said it.
2. Guy Walters is already used extensively as a source for this article and his opinion is already discussed. So to give mutiple quotations from this one researcher gives his opinion undue weight.
3. the statement "he was one of the biggest conmen of the 20th century ... Any man who utters so many untruths does not deserve to be revered" is really over the top; total hyperbole, and it's only one man's opinion. For this reason it does not belong in the article, even if a reliable source could be found. Sorry I did not have time to add my full rationale for my removal this morning, but I had to go to work. -- Dianna (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best solution is here, but I do agree with Solntsa that it's a little problematic to include Walters' 2009 position without mentioning his quite different take in 2010. (It's a shame Walters couldn't make his own mind about this before publishing his book and save us the trouble!) I think it's unlikely that the Daily Mail fabricated an editorial under Walters' name without anyone else reporting the fact, but I agree that this would not at all be an important source if not for the contradiction it presents to what we've got here. Perhaps we can search to see if Walters also published this viewpoint, or a version of it, in more self-evidently reliable forums. Another solution might be to simply remove both quotations on Walters' personal judgement of the inaccuracies to avoid misrepresenting his views? Will give this some more thought tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Walters' opinion did not actually change from the publication of the book in 2009 to the publication of this editorial in 2010. If you read the Daily Mail article carefully, you'lll see what he says is that his opinion of Wiesenthal changed from the time he started his research to the time he completed writing the book. There's some pretty strongly worded stuff in his book as well. The more strongly worded quotations were not included in the article, though, so as to not give Mr Walters' opinion undue weight. He's only one of several sources that were used to re-write the article before its promotion to GA in January, and they all agree that Wiesenthal made stuff up, and the article reflects that in a neutral way. Please keep in mind too that even though Mr Wiesenthal is deceased, there's potential legal issues if you put defamatory material into the encyclopedia. To be blunt, Wikipedia could be sued. -- Dianna (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. If this article does accurately show Walters' views from the book, then I think we should probably remove the quotation where Walters appears to excuse the inaccuracies: "If there was a motive for his duplicity, it may well have been rooted in good intentions". As somebody who read only this quotation in the article without reading the Walters biography, I had the impression that Walters had a much more benign view of Wiesenthal's inaccuracies-- (Paraphrase: "If he misrepresented, it was for good reasons")--rather than seeing him as a massive fraud whose legacy was destroyed by his lies, as Walters describes him in the Daily Mail piece. I'm fine with cutting the "good intentions" quotation and I'm also fine with clarifying from a source of your choice, but it doesn't sound like this quotation is the best choice to show the harshness of Walters' views. I agree that Walters shouldn't be given undue weight in terms of article space, but if we're going to include a comment from him about this, can a more representative one be found? (On a minor point, checking Google Books for context, it appears that the quotation was somewhat wrong, omitting two sentences; I've added an ellipsis to show that it was altered.)

Alternatively, if Walters proves too hard to pin down in a short quote, but you strongly feel some quote is needed here, is there a good one from Segev? Looking at reviews, Segev appears to be the more respected of the pair anyway.

As for legal concerns, the suggestion that Wikipedia could be successfully sued for quoting the views of one of Wiesenthal's leading biographers--in quotation marks and with clear attribution to the source--seems to me pretty implausible. Walters might get sued for his allegations (though he hasn't in the four years since the book's release), but I don't see how the newspapers, scholars, and encyclopedias that have quoted or reported on those allegations in good faith could be. If you're concerned, though, let's contact a WMF expert. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a professional libel attorney.

Sorry if it feels like I'm giving you a hard time. I respect your work on this article tremendously and I'm glad to be collaborating with you on it. Let me know if any of the above suggestions sound promising, or if you have any of your own, and hopefully we can come up with some mutually agreeable solution! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally have been the recipient of an email from User:Philippe (WMF) saying I personally was named in a subpoena (not regarding this article but a different one, and I was only one of hundreds of editors to that article who was listed in the subpoena, but still, is scared the shit out of me). This is an experience I would not wish on anyone. When I investigated, I discovered that editors can indeed have their information passed along when required by the courts, and there would be no legal assistance forthcoming from the Foundation. It's unlikely that a court in the United States would pursue me here in Canada, but you never know. I am going to err on the side of caution.

Segev's book was also critical of Wiesenthal, though he used a lot less volatile language than Walters. Those two books are available at the library, but I won't be going back there till Monday. I can fetch the books at that time if need be. This previous revision of Simon Wiesenthal shows some further quotes from Walters that are a little stronger. How about we add this sentence, from page 78: "Wiesenthal’s scant regard for the truth makes it possible to doubt everything he ever wrote or said." The statement immediately precedes the material that's already quoted, and is quite a bit stronger without going into the "worst liar of the 20th century" territory. Do you think that will address your concerns? I could certainly fetch the books home next week and look for something from Segev as well/instead if you like. -- Dianna (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow--sorry to hear about that experience. I can see how it would make you cautious.

Re: Walters, I personally think the "scant regard for the truth" quotation would be an excellent substitution--it gives more of a sense of Walters' hostility to his subject. But I was thinking about this some more this afternoon, and I'm fine leaving it to what you think best. You've read the book, I haven't, and I trust your judgement. If Solntsa sees a need to pursue the discussion further I'll leave it up to her/him.

Thanks for all you do! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush; let's wait for further comments. it could be a substitution or it could be in addition to the quote that's already there. Thanks Khazar2 for your help monitoring this important article. -- Dianna (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If Guy Walters is going to be quoted, why don't we use his most recent quote from the Daily Mail? Once again, the Daily Mail in this instance qualifies as a valid source since in this case it is a primary source. If no valid reason or violation is cited as to why this should be removed, (and the Simon Wiesenthal center isn't going to intimidate me with frivilous lawsuits), Then I will add back in the Daily Mail bit, as there is honestly no good reason I can see for it's exclusion, especially since It's the most recent dispatch we have regarding his views on this topic, and not including it would be like leaving Malcolm X's biography off from before he goes to Mecca--it distorts the reality of what the author of the article really thinks.

Solntsa90 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

ALSO Diannaa, I have a problem where you say The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source for any purpose on this wiki. In other words, just because the material appeared in the Daily Mail does not prove that Mr Walters actually said it.

Really? So even if they admit authorship of an article, even if the article in question is an opinion editorial (which I think, if someone should be praising Wiesenthal, we should offer a detractor's opinion as well) it's not a "valid source"? Using that criteria, we can't even write an article on Mr. Wiesenthal, since none of his biographies are valid sources either! You're going to have to show me where it was written by Wikipedia and quoted "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source for any reason, not even author editorials". Until then, your reasoning remains unknown to me.

Solntsa90 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked in the archives of the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and the Daily Mail is considered the bottom of the barrel as far as sources go. They have been caught fabricating stories and writing their news stories before events happen: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Time to axe the Daily Mail. They should definitely not be used as the source for controversial claims: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134#Is Daily Mail a reliable source for Lord Ahmed's views? -- Dianna (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Lwów and Lviv

I have noticed that in this article often in the same paragraph the names Lwów and Lviv are used to discripe the same city.... I think we should stick to Lwów since when Wiesenthal lived there that was the official name for the city. Using both in the article looks confusing for me and I have been to Lviv more then once (hence calling the city Lwów at present times looks stupid to me, but Wiesenthal did live there in the past). All agree? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and seconded if this hasen't changed already. Lwów is a classical spelling that many more people are accustomed to seeing. In fact I do not really know/recognise the alternate spelling at all.75.21.113.40 (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvov, Lwów or Lviv? Not really bothered, but the touchstone, I think, is what is most common in English usage - not the "official" name. There is, I believe, a Wiki rule about this. There are parallel examples for Munich/Munchen, Lisbon/Lisboa and Cairo/al-Qāhira. Indeed, London has several non-English versions which are valid in those languages, eg Londres, Londen. This point has been argued on the on the Brugge/Bruges talk page. Folks at 137 (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd much rather go with Professor Snyder than use Lwów. Objections? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Lviv is the city's name in the Ukrainian language. Lwów is Polish. See Lviv#names for more information. The city has not been under Polish control since 1939. I believe that the city should be referred to as Lviv currently, since it is part of Ukraine.John Paul Parks (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Our artice says Lviv, so I have gone ahead and changed it to that. -- Dianna (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following quotation from Guy Walters be added to the article?

"In my view, Simon Wiesenthal was a liar and a fraud. In fact, I’d go so far as to say he was one of the biggest conmen of the 20th century ... Any man who utters so many untruths does not deserve to be revered." Source: Walters, Guy. "Why I believe the king of the Nazi hunters, Simon Wiesenthal, was a fraud". Daily Mail. Retrieved 20 March 2013. Dianna (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose; I think the quote is over the top to the point of being libellous, and the sourcing to the Daily Mail is inadequate. -- Dianna (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) * Oppose, per WP:RS, WP:POV and WP:SOAP. With that said, I agree that adding the quote suggested, "...scant regard for the truth" (with book cite), is a good substitution to make the same point; placed into the "Autobiographical inconsistencies" section. Kierzek (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do think that Walters' views should be better clarified in the article, but Diannaa's persuaded me there are better ways to do it than that quotation. Like Kierzek, I would support adding the "scant regard for the truth" citation from Walters' book that Diannaa proposed above, which covers much the same ground and is a more reliable source. Failing that, I'd suggest simply removing the current quotation which could be read as Walters excusing Wiesenthal. But both these solutions are preferable to including Walters' Daily Mail editorial. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; whatever Wiesenthal was, it is indisputable that he is revered for what he did more so than for what he said he did. For the sake of historical truth, the "scant regard for the truth" quote is valuable, and can be used as it is widely supported. The Walters quote is a particularly strong claim that is in all probability true, however, it is only one opinion and should not be used unless supported by other reliable historians. Wayne (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose but on the condition that the fawning quote that glorifies Wiesenthal and glosses over his pure fabrications and lies is removed as well, since it adds an imbalance to this article, and so many of these articles where people are employed in holocaust-related professions are usually heavily biased in that direction. (If that quote isn't removed, I will not re-add the Daily mail quote, but will find that quote in another, more valid source.) Solntsa90 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Walters found many inconsistencies among the three main biographies and between these books and historical documents. "His figure is a complex and important one ... If there was a motive for his duplicity, it may well have been rooted in good intentions," he said"

Is a terrible thing to have written into an encyclopedia without any counterweight, as it's basically supposing non-neutral stances into an encyclopedia. Without a counterbalance, this falls into the realm of propaganda. If we're going to start justifying Wiesenthal's pathological lies, why not gloss over every politician's outright fabrications as well Solntsa90 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to take it upon myself to remove the offending quote(s) and replace it with something more worthy of an encyclopedia, something that can be written in without as much bias as the current quote, which blanket-justifies Simon Wiesenthal's life-long list of lies. The current quote just irritates me looking at it, as someone with no idea who Simon Wiesenthal is could take it to mean this encyclopedia is justifying or endorsing the position that him covering up his lies is "for the greater good", to paraphrase.

Thus I see some serious revision needed, and I'll do it just to make the encyclopedia less balanced towards a sympathetic portrayal of Wiesenthal, and more towards the center, where every encyclopedic stance should be. 2602:306:C475:A790:CC26:D5A:4754:EDA4 (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the debate here, it's probably best to wait for the RfC to run its course, or to build some consensus before making that change. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Khazar2. -The Gnome (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, sort of. Already the article contains the various controversies surrounding Wiesenthal's research itself, under the section dedicated to his autobiography. In that section, quotes such as this could be considered, if amply supported. It is noteworthy that those who, as per the above, oppose inclusion of the quote do not contest the truthfulness of its claim.-The Gnome (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose use of that quote, since it adds nothing to the article. Actual non-trivial examples of deceptions would be more useful, but they should be on issues that actually matter to history (no trivia like where he went to school). Zero^talk 09:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose (I received RFC from FRS bot) A very vague very negative swipe that adds nothing to the article. Also seems out of line with the actual complaints. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Sourcing isn't good enough for such a bold Walters quote. I agree with Khazar2 and think that using another quote would be preferable -- especially for a BLP. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP rules do not apply here. Wiesenthal is most certainly dead. -The Gnome (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - whatever else the man did a great deal to publicise the fact that many of these perpetrators were never brought to justice. Jack1956 (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is turning into a popularity poll for the life work of Simon Wiesenthal - and that is most certainly not the purpose of a Request for Comment. We have a violation of Wikipedia's Neutrality principle, here, while a lot of opinions are justified on irrelevancies. -The Gnome (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

We do not need perfect heroes

I personally admire Wiesenthal's work in bringing Nazis to justice and, more importantly, creating media noise to the effect that people and governments were forced to pay attention and take action. Having said this, I feel disturbed by the tendency to sanctify the man behind the work. Wiesenthal was a human being, like every one of us, and no human being is perfect. People here seem to be confused: Following Wikipedia's strict and explicit rules about editing articles (and putting up the whole truth about some of his claims, as well as comments about his many transgressions on Truth) is not akin to "disowning" Wiesenthal!

Some users have even invoked the rules on Biographies of Living Persons, even though Wiesenthal died many years ago.

Here's a sample of the commentary offering justification for opinions against including the negative words of a critic:

• "....whatever Wiesenthal was, it is indisputable that he is revered for what he did more so than for what he said he did."

Yet, what he said he did has as much importance for an encyclopaedia article as what he said. This is an encyclopaedia whose main rules for inclusion are Verifiablity and Notability. The criticism satisfies both criteria.

• "...whatever else, the man did a great deal to publicise the fact that many of these perpetrators were never brought to justice."

Wikipedia is not meant to promote people or their actions. It does not advocate! If the material is notable enough and sufficiently verifiable, it merits inclusion even if said material, for some people, seems to be detrimental to the subject's value.

• "...the quote is over the top to the point of being libellous..."

But Wikipedia is not a prude and does not mind its content being offensive to some people! Note that there can be no libel against deceased people.

• "...it adds nothing to the article."

It is a clearly notable quote, since it created quite a controversy when it came out. (See sources.) And notability is a prime criterion for inclusion.

• "Sourcing isn't good enough for such a bold Walters quote."

It has been proven that many of Wiesenthal's claims have turned out to be false. The sourcing for those claims is in the article. The sourcing for the quote itself is the place whwre it appeared.

I'd humbly ask that we forget for a moment who this man was and what his life work was about and concentrate on following the rules of Wikipedia, first and foremost. In the interest of context and disclosure, here's the text of my vote in the above RfC: "Support, sort of. Already the article contains the various controversies surrounding Wiesenthal's research itself, under the section dedicated to his autobiography. In that section, quotes such as this could be considered, if amply supported. It is noteworthy that those who, as per the above, oppose inclusion of the quote do not contest the truthfulness of its claim." My regards to all contributors, The Gnome (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You asserted "Yet, what he said he did has as much importance for an encyclopaedia article as what he said", yet I don't see any reason to believe that. Zero^talk 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of "believing" something. The controversy about Wiesenthal's claims is evidently a notable issue and, let me repeat again, notablity is a fundamental criterion for inclusion in the Wikipedia. (See sub-section herebelow.) This is not a "personal" or "ideological" matter.-The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My main objection to using the quote is that it's sourced to the Daily Mail, which is not considered a reliable source for use on this wiki. My secondary rationale for non-inclusion is that including too much of the opinions of Walters gives undue weight to that one researcher, who is only one of several people who have written biographies of Wiesenthal. -- Dianna (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And to clarify something else, I don't believe this quotation actually sparked controversy when it came out. I saw plenty of controversy following Walters' biography, which the article does cover. But not the Daily Mail piece. Maybe you can note the sources you're looking at? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is your question addressed to, Khazar2? The indentation implies you are asking me this question. Just a reminder to all participants (since the talk page is getting kinda big) that I earlier made the suggestion that we replace the milder "His figure is a complex and important one ... If there was a motive for his duplicity, it may well have been rooted in good intentions" with this more strongly worded quote, which is from page 78 of Walter's book: "Wiesenthal’s scant regard for the truth makes it possible to doubt everything he ever wrote or said." This better reflects Walter's opinion of Wiesenthal without resorting to using the Daily Mail as a source. -- Dianna (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that quote ("we replace the milder "His figure is a complex and important one ... If there was a motive for his duplicity, it may well have been rooted in good intentions") reliably sourced? Because this is what we're supposed to do here - and no put up our personal views. Also, please note, that Wikipedia does not mind its content being offensive to people, so the criterion of "mildness" simply does not apply. Thanks, The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to the Gnome's "See sources". -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm opening up a new section herebelow, since the notability itself of Wiesenthal's many false claims is now being disputed.-The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The fallout of Wiesenthal's false claimss

As it has been established, Wiesenthal made several false claims in his writings and statements, possibly, as people claim for "good reasons", i.e. to amplify popular interest in the hunting down of Nazi criminals.

Guy Walters is not simply a "Daily Mail writer" but has worked also at The Telegraph and the New Statesman. He has personally, as a journalist and author, researched the Holocaust, as well as the hunt for Nazi war criminals. He is on record as being "frustrated at the enormous amount of junk history around" the subject and took it upon himself as "his personal mission to wage war on ignorance and misconceptions about the past."

Walters' truth-seeking has led him to question or expose other historical items as well, such as the "black Florence Nightingale" story.

So, we are not dealing with a Holocaust denier, here.

Moreover, Daniel Finkelstein, associate editor of The Times commented on Wiezenthal's falsehoods in this 2009 article in The Jewish Chronicle. Finkelstein concluded that "accepting that Wiesenthal was a showman and a braggart and, yes, even a liar, can live alongside acknowledging the contribution he made." [emphasis added]

Which is not different from Walters' comments. Perhaps Finkelstein's comments are more fitting, since they serve to denote, in the Wikipedia article on Wiezenthal's life, both the extent and the seriousness of the man's falsehoods and the significant worth of his life's work. Sans the emphasis, of course. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You realize that that Finkelstein quotation is already in the article, right? Just to clarify, I don't think anyone is debating the notability of Wiesenthal's claims, nor Walters' credentials. All that's under debate here is whether Walters' specific quotation from a tabloid newspaper should be included, as opposed to finding a quotation from one of his journalistic or scholarly works. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now I am confused, because this exact quotation from Finkelstein is already used in the article. It's the very last sentence. And did you know that Walters wrote a book called Hunting Evil: The Nazi War Criminals Who Escaped and the Quest to Bring Them to Justice, which is already cited 27 times in this article? so obviously we know who he is and have no problem with his credentials. -- Dianna (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Khazar2 and Dianna: I suggest that Walters' opinion be included, as well as Finkelstein's. (I apologize if I was unclear.) The two researchers and authors come to a similar conclusion. In my opinion, Finkelstein's seems to me as more fitting for Wiezenthal's lifework, but, again, this is not about personal opinions. As to the potential "offensiveness" of Walters' wording, it is irrelevant.

Well, okay; we understood that from your vote above and your multiple other statements. But responding to other votes individually as well as opening two more threads on the subject is perhaps starting to bludgeon the discussion a bit. Your viewpoint that we shouldn't worry about offensiveness has been duly registered. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend to "bludgeon" anyone or the discussion. In any case, the consensus is obvious, as noted below. Apologies for forgetting to sign my previous comment. -The Gnome (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate your providing a counterpoint to the discussion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Time to close the RFC

No independent observer has yet closed the RFC, but there's an obvious strong consensus not to include the quotation from the Daily Mail. I think we should go ahead and remove "His figure is a complex and important one ... If there was a motive for his duplicity, it may well have been rooted in good intentions" and substitute this more strongly worded quote, which is from page 78 of Walter's book: "Wiesenthal’s scant regard for the truth makes it possible to doubt everything he ever wrote or said", which better reflects Walter's opinion of Wiesenthal. -- Dianna (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now instituted this change. -- Dianna (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this prejudicial?

The following comment in the article introduction struck me as opinion rather than fact: "With a reputation as a storyteller, Wiesenthal was the author of several memoirs that contain tales that are only loosely based on actual events. In particular, he exaggerated his role in the capture of Eichmann in 1960." A source for this particular claim would be nice, especially as the sentence is part of the article's introduction and should be fully factual. I propose either a source be found or the statement be reworded to avoid drawing conclusions from facts not in evidence. MissKatie89 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)MissKatie89

Like the rest of the lead, this is a summary of material that appears elsewhere in the article. These two sentences are a summary of the section Autobiographical inconsistencies, where more detailed information and the relevant citations can be found. Nevertheless, since you have challenged the material, I am adding citations to the lead per WP:lead. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, the citations are appreciated. I know as a reader I would be less put off by this claim seeing that it is obviously derived from a source and therefore more than just an opinion. MissKatie89 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)MissKatie89

"Nazi Hunter"

Is that wordcombination widely used to describe him?--188.101.121.27 (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm, it kind of seemed strange to me :/ But thank you for the information --178.1.116.157 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange? Maybe so but within the context that seek out those that were war-related criminal activity suspects (remember, innocent until proven guilty) and those that hold the view that these criminals should be prosecuted could devote their lives to seeking out N's or other non-detainee clogs in the system and those that can act as witnesses to the war activities. These seekers have been camp/war survivors and Axis country citizens that never supported the Nazis or the war aims, or became disillusioned by the N'z and/or war (possibly as an act seeking redemption). "Hunt" / "Seek" the connotation remains the same but hunt has more longevity and usage.76.170.88.72 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Fascist or Jewish Nazi ?

There seems to be two different terms in the article relating to the same incident. Which is it that was said by the defendant (maybe both and should probably be included in the cotes) or which is what may have been mischaracterized by the original contributor from a source or transferred from an other article(s) or subsequent editor(s) changes of the article? With a green status this really should have been noticed.76.170.88.72 (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Levy says "fascist" so I am changing it. I will double check in Segev once the book arrives. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That justification seems to rely merely by closeness of association. For the moment, let us forget about Levy; what does a newspaper of record report about the term/word(s) used in the defamation lawsuit? If one or both is mentioned then it is likely that Levy could have used both without realizing it because if it can happen in a WP article then why could it not happen in a book. If only one is the concern of the lawsuit and Levy used both then his representations may be called into question. When it comes to Levy, he will identify the source (preferably a primary source or at least a secondary source that cites a primary source) so that we can determine just how far away is the primary source information from the author's statement. But most importantly, I am interested in knowing which authors best represent the intent of the primary source. WP should be citing works that are based on primary sources and direct ways by which people can look into that citation to determine on their own if what is presented is a true representation. This just goes to show that color tag for quality is not an assurance because for however long Nazi/fascist existed one too many assumptions persisted. Being immersed in an article or topic can cause tunnel vision where differences may not be so apparent.76.170.88.72 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

POV / representation of the source author or the statement of the original source ?

The following text from the article is a bit odd as it presumes that what was found about his war record, without evaluation of validity at trial, is valid proof enough for conviction before being charged or held for trial: "Investigations by the World Jewish Congress led the Israeli attorney general to conclude that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, and Waldheim was elected president in July 1986." What ever happened to the phase of being charged before someone is tried at trial? And being held to trial is not an automatic result of conviction since the whole point of trial should be to evaluate the evidence/information/witnesses. Although the Congress is a Jewish-interest organization and Israel a Jewish state both do not unilaterally act or represent the views or interests of each other. I seriously doubt that Israel did not conduct its own evaluation in order to come to its own route of action. The conclusion may have been the same but one does not automatically mean the other was any more the representative of the other. Also, the "and" aspect of the text could imply that not being held for trial resulted in his election to the presidency. Some one can for the slightest degree be associated with crime and be elected to office. And being dis-associated from crime is not an automatic path to elective office; that is politics and the will of the people or the movers and shakers. So are these statements expressed in the original source material or the conclusion of the secondary source or a misrepresentation of both when included in the article?76.170.88.72 (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand the question. The Israeli government decided that there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction, so the matter never went to trial. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC) I have amended the prose a bit and will double check against the source once it arrives on loan. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Any prosecutor will say that what "evidence" they have gathered is real and truthful but the fact remains that evidence is not real and truthful until evaluated as such at trial. So WP saying that the Israeli government finding that a conviction was not likely if brought to trial presents only one aspect of the situation. The authority that WP may have as an unbiased authoritative source of information can cast an aspiration on someone without contributors also including what mental health research has been conducted particularly when it comes to war situations. This is not a justification for what he may have done or was aware but if testimony of expert witnesses can become accepted and thus true, at least in a particular trial, then WP articles should review that line of thought. It has to be remembered that until that time when the primary documentation is made available by the Israeli government then all we have on which to rely regarding their action not to proceed to trial is incomplete and second hand. It very well may be shown that it was not necessarily the lack of a conviction that prompted not taking it to trial but that the government found that with the "public" change in his life from having been a Nazi that the government had no long term benefit of prosecuting W.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What seems to be either missing from Segev's work or not included in the article although appearing in his work, is that Israel has in the past insisted that war crimes prosecutions take place in the nation of origin rather than leaving to Israel becoming the dumbing ground for war crimes criminals. If all perspectives are absent so then it is not an unbiased source although its information may be useful as a means of identifying from what sources information comes. This is not an attempt to absolve him but that if WP wants to be a source of authority then sometimes the sources cited have to be evaluated instead of being taken as unilaterally correct. That is a fundamental action of historians that have been accorded the distinction of being authorities in their field. So is the statement of the attorney general taken as the only reason for inaction or are there additional statements either in Segev's source or by Israel that have not been included because they may not have supported Segev's statement?76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG

The claims contained in the first-party sources (such as autobiographies) are only as good as the archival records which support them via historical analysis. So, what are the facts? Polish law enforcement was dissolved in Lviv completely during the Soviet invasion of Poland and replaced with NKVD. Most if not all higher officials were arrested and deported. Following Operation Barbarossa, the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police was created on the orders of Heinrich Himmler in mid-August 1941. Lwów remained under German occupation until 27 July 1944. There's no hope in hell for the presence of Polish detectives there at that particular time. Wiesenthal could have used a mental foreshortening in his story, but that's not good enough anymore, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Poeticbent talk 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The source twice uses the phrase "Polish detectives" on page 54. But it's not necessary to specify, so I have removed it. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Third paragraph contains confusing sentence.

This sentence is in the third paragraph: "He later accused him of collaborating with the Nazis". I think it would be less jarring if these pronouns were replaced with the actual names involved. While the subsequent sentences make it clear who "he" and "him" are, why not fix the momentary confusion? Sluefoot (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this whole paragraph needs to be reduced and the details moved from the Introduction section to the body somewhere. Far more words are devoted to this trivial knowledge than, say, how he survived three concentration camps and a death march. Mannydantyla (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The material in the lead already appears in the body, as the lead is a summary of the contents. This is true for all Good Articles and Featured Articles as well as many other articles. See WP:LEAD for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A lifelong stamp collector

A lifelong stamp collector would not be assumed to have taken up the hobby as an infant. "Lifelong" means "throughout one's life", but not literally. So we say "a lifelong conservative" or "a lifelong fan of the theatre"— Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And "longtime" is less precise. What is a long time? It could be a few years or a few decades. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that me and Diannaa by chance discovered two source forgeries it would be great if someone went through this article and checked the other sources. Until then, I think it should be demoted from good article status. ImTheIP (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am actually the person who added that content back in 2013. I don't know why I made that mistake and I no longer have the access to the source books that I used to re-write the article as preparation for the Good Article nomination, so I have no way to double check where I got it from. Obviously it was incorrect and it's now been removed. Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know. Sorry! I didn't intend to imply malicious intent. I have a new book about Wiesenthal in my university library so I can perhaps go through and check some of the sources myself. ImTheIP (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Addition by user:NONIS STEFANO

I have twice removed an addition by user:NONIS STEFANO. This is the edit in question: Diff of Simon Wiesenthal. I have multiple problems with this addition.

• "but not nearly as important as Bauer's information and photograph were. Mossad's Isser Harel acknowledged the most important role Fritz Bauer played in Eichmann's capture." I removed this because this article is not about Bauer, and it's not necessary to compare Wiesenthal's contribution with Bauer. The article already makes it clear that Wiesenthal's contribution to the Eichmann case was in fact negligible.
• "Also Eli Rosenbaum, a severe critic of Wiesenthal, accused Wiesenthal of lying. As for the claim that Wiesenthal passed on precious information to the Israeli ambassador in Vienna concerning Eichmann's whereabouts, according to Rosenbaum the reference to the 'vast lands' was so vague that gave the impression they were talking about northern Germany, instead of Argentina." Some of the words/grammar in this section are not the way we use them in English. We don't call someone a "severe critic"; instead we might say he severely criticised. We don't say "precious information", but we might say "valuable information". This is about an incident with the Israeli ambassador in Vienna and a remark about "vast lands"; it's an incident not mentioned elsewhere in the article, so it's not possible from what you've added to determine the sequence of events or what exactly you are talking about. There's no context. Hence it's not an encyclopedic addition.
• "In his book Hunting Evil Walters debunks some 'myths' regarding the self-styled 'Nazi hunters', among them Simon Wiesenthal, whose Center boasts of having been instrumental in capturing more than a thousand runaway Nazi criminals, although according to Walters they might be no more than ten." Guy Walters' analysis is already thoroughly covered, and you would need a separate citation for the assertion that the Simon Wiesenthal Center claims Wiesenthal claims more than a thousand successes.— Diannaa (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)