Talk:Simon Wiesenthal Center

message: The page should be edited to also reflect some of the SWC's rather rabid lashing out at any critics of any jews, anywhere. 
Example from the current debate regarding the statements of the internationally famed author, Jostein Gaarder, who spoke against the Israeli campaign in Lebanon. SWC claims that Gaarder  has been recruited "to the forces of darkness" for speaking out against the recent Israeli campaign, which Gaarder deems an excersie in overkill. 
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=312458&content_id={2147E1EE-FC04-4D0E-9230-C572B7F5EE8F}¬oc=1
Some of the statments in this open letter leave serious doubts as to the objectivity of the SWC as a research foundation. Resembling fanatical, if coherent, ramblings rather than anything else I hope this does not reflect SWC's usual policy to criticsm. I might add that the original piece by Gaarder quite specifically refrains from general criticsm against jews, but rather focus on the excesses of the Israeli State.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1415414.ece
GHBrekke
I agree, this is an important issue to raise awarness of. Mmarien  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmarien (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested edit 

message: There is a line "© Copyright 2005, Simon Wiesenthal Center". Does this mean this text is not GNU-FDL? Then it has to be deleted! --85.212.40.49 18:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: The third paragraph of the introduction begins "The organization fosters tolerance and understanding".  This is not NPOV, and I suggest changing it to "The organization aims to foster tolerance and understanding".  This does not imply criticism of the SWC (and I have no such criticism to make); it is simply a matter of making a neutral statement.  158.109.1.15 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, Rick2000, is that the text you have published was just a copy and paste from the organizations website. That is what the problem is: we just do not like it when people just copy and paste stuff. Plus, the version you have now put on here is not really much about the organization itself, but about their leaders, bios, etc. We want information on just about the center. Zscout370 (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Does the SWC even know what is going on? If not, I would suggest to you to stop printing information to that effect. The Center is an organization that is well know, since I mainly know about it due to the Nazi-hunting they perform. However, we can mention the organization is run by X person, there is branches in Y location and also the establishments of Z memorials and museums. But we do not need bios of the leaders. And if the information is included, make sure that it is reworded, since we do not want to get in trouble for copyright violations/plagirism. Zscout370 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I am glad you want to expand the page, but just the way you have been doing it is raising eyebrows. We have nothing against you, but many Wikipedia pages are not cut and paste from various websites. We can provide information that is listed on the wesbite, but it has to be reworded so we do not face many copyright problems. Zscout370 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this version is fine. Zscout370 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I would like to clear up a misconception. This is not the "Center's Wikipedia site". It is the site on wikipedia about the Center. An article should be unbiased, and generally it is considered to be wrong that a person or entity write about them selves on wikipedia. Please note that I am not criticizing the text, but the potential bias of the ones who wrote it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.226.87.178 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: A link to an article critical of the center written by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was defunct, so I found the article through a google search. I do not know if this was the original article sited, although it is on the original web server.
I also deleted the phrase that the IHR was "an Anti-Semitic site concerning the centre". Although I know little about either organization, I saw nothing from a quick overview of their site that would lead me to believe they were explicitly anti-semitic. Besides being POV, the comment had nothing to do with the link or the article. Aaronwinborn 15:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just read wikipedia's article on the IHR, and I guess I was mistaken. I like the new description for the external link; it's sufficiently NPOV while warning the reader. Aaronwinborn 01:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IHR link

message: So that no feathers are ruffled, just explaining my changes. I expanded the criticism of their recent attacks on Chavez, since the original sentence didn't say enough about what the criticisms (or their accusations) were. I also reworded the bit about the professor's book, since it was just a quote the way it stood. Aaronwinborn 16:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: I moved the section about "Locating Ex-Nazi's" up to make it more prominent, because it looked like a footnote where it was at the bottom. Seems like if this is a notable event and part of their mission, they should get more credit for it. Also, it had a link of nazis|ex-nazis, so i made that just ex-nazis to be more clear. Aaronwinborn 16:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ex-Nazis

message: The use of 'so-called' in following line seems to be somewhat inappropriate:
The Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance is one of many partner organizations of the Austrian Association for Service Abroad (Auslandsdienst) and the corresponding so-called Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service (Gedenkdienst).
In particular, the use of the word 'so-called' seems to be passing some kind of judgement on this organization.  After reading the linked article, I'm still not sure what that judgement is supposed to mean Ericzundel 11:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I'm familiar with the Austrian service program and it's bona fide. Perhaps the editor who wrote "so-called" was referring to the German-English translation of its name. At any rate, it smacks of POV and I've deleted it accordingly. -- Deborahjay 09:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service

message: According to its advertisement in the Haaretz newspaper (27 September 2007) announcing an upcoming  one-time screening in Jerusalem of "The Long Way Home", winner of the 1998 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, the Simon Wiesenthal Center was involved in the film's production. I have no further information to clarify or corroborate this, but think it would be an appropriate addition to the Center's page. -- Deborahjay  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Long Way Home" 

message: The article currently states: "In November 2005, the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Jerusalem Director, Dr. Efraim Zuroff, located Aribert Heim, who had been hiding in Spain for 20 years".
However, this is not the case as Heim has not been located :  BBC article Is the net tightening on Nazi Dr Death?
I've never done anything with Wikipedia before so unsure how to go about editing anything but read this entry immediately after reading the BBC article about Heim so thought someone should know.
Cheers 
Steve Clennell
213.249.208.106 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heim located? 

message: A footnote in Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry says:
Wiesenthal rents out his name to the Center for $90,000 annually.
This follows a reference to Yossi Klein Halevi's 1993 article in The Jerusalem Report called "Who Owns the Memory?" Can anyone verify that Halevi's article is the source? It's certainly a worthy piece of knowledge for this and the Simon Wiesenthal article, given that the Center's article says that:
Simon Wiesenthal had nothing to do with the operation or activities of the SWC other than giving it its name.
Certainly an annual payment of such an amount strains the definition of "giving." Bangpound (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming rights purchased? 

message: On February 12, 2010 the following was appended to SWC's page under the Israel section:
----
As the Supreme Court noted in its ruling, "for almost 50 years the compound has not been a part of the cemetery, both in the normative sense and in the practical sense, and it was used for various public purposes." It also noted: "During all those years no one raised any claim, on even one occasion, that the planning procedures violated the sanctity of the site, or that they were contrary to the law as a result of the historical and religious uniqueness of the site. . . . For decades this area was not regarded as a cemetery by the general public or by the Muslim community. . . . No one denied this position."
The entire area of the Mamilla Cemetery had long been regarded by Muslim religious leaders as mundras -- abandoned. A cemetery not in use for 37 years is considered mundras and without sanctity. That explains why in 1946 the most prominent Islamic religious figure of the day, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, presented plans to build a Muslim university on a large portion of the Mamilla Cemetery itself (a rendering of which was presented to the court). Today, the concept of mundras is widely accepted and practiced in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories and throughout the Arab world.
Though Judaism does not have a mundras concept, the Supreme Court noted in its decision that "despite the Jewish religious law prohibitions . . . to prevent the removal of graves or building on top of them, in practice, in cases where public needs required this, an agreed Jewish law solution has usually been found, and this allowed the building to be carried out in a way that minimized . . . the violation of the graves. . . . Jewish religious law also allows, as we have said, the removal of graves in a dignified manner. Balanced solutions of this kind were also proposed by the respondents [Simon Wiesenthal Center], and they even agreed to pay all the expenses involved in them."
Recent critics such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Americans for Peace Now and the Center for Constitutional Rights argue that the Museum of Tolerance should abide by a higher standard than the letter of the law. The court confirms lawyers attempted to meet with Salah but were rebuffed. Once a legal case was filed, the Supreme Court's mediator tried, but fared no better. The SWC offered solutions to build without disturbing the bones -- also rejected. They offered to restore the neglected and virtually abandoned nearby Mamilla Cemetery. That proposal was also rejected.
A proper site for a Museum of Tolerance - The Wiesenthal Center's project has been approved by the government and the courts, and will be built on property that is not a cemetery but a parking lot.
----
IMHO this edit does not reflect a NPOV. Of course it cites a Supreme Court decision (a standard bearer of neutrality!), but I think it weighs too much on the case of the plantiffs (even though they won the suit). My suggestion is to replace this long edit with a briefer edit describing the outcome of the case and linking to the decision (and optionally the latimes articles/other news sources). For now, I've tried to do this on the article page. Thoughts?
Eedwa 01 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court Decision 

message: The "Criticism" section is confusing. Is it supposed to describe the criticism of the Centre or by the Centre ? --Lysytalk 09:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this section seems confused, and for that matter mostly appears to be a combination of OR and SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been resolved by the removal of the section.  After all, how could there be any possible criticism of the Centre?  It and it's views and methods are perfect and beyond reproach, by definition.  War crimes?  The Centre will be going after other more recent war crimes, soon.  Things like kidnapping people abroad, interning them and torturing them with no recourse to the law.; and like flying remote controlled killing machines in other countries.  What?  The Centre isn't interested in such crimes?  My mistake.  --Lysytalk 06:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Zentralrat defends Jakob Augstein over accusations by SWC of Augstein beeing one of the top10 antisemites in the world
http://www.tagesschau-online.de/inland/augstein102.html
134.3.76.108 (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Council of Jews in Germany criticizes SWC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Simon Wiesenthal Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071119093416/http://www.ria.ie/pdfs/Hunt%20Museum%20Final%20Report%20June%2006.pdf to http://www.ria.ie/pdfs/Hunt%20Museum%20Final%20Report%20June%2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Simon Wiesenthal Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528095512/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Simon Wiesenthal Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217032055/http://www.ria.ie/getmedia/c7eeb36f-5121-4ac4-9171-8fa1c9731e13/The-Hunt-Report---Final-Report.pdf.aspx to http://www.ria.ie/getmedia/c7eeb36f-5121-4ac4-9171-8fa1c9731e13/The-Hunt-Report---Final-Report.pdf.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/641390.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Icewhiz, click on the link, search for "advocacy"... ImTheIP (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I did - this appears in the description of other organizations with which SWC is co-affiliated or co-sponsored an event of. It is not a description of SWC's activities themselves. Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence describes "issues the center deals with". The page I linked to reads "Simon Wiesenthal Center Campus Outreach was proud to co-sponsor the ECJS's annual European Collegian New Year/Shabbat Experience, leading workshops focusing on Israel Advocacy, as well as showing the new film" and also "Simon Wiesenthal Center Campus Outreach announces its membership in The Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC)" This proves that the center "deals with" Israel advocacy. ImTheIP (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It proves they partnered with an Israel advocacy group and that they co-sponsored a single event. It doesn't say anything about what they do. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a fascinatingly literal interpretation of the text. But I think you must agree that Simon Wiesenthal Center Campus Outreach's membership in the The Israel on Campus Coalition means that this group engages in Israel advocacy, no? ImTheIP (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it merely means that Holocaust education and countering antisemitism is compatible with the coalition. Being a member of a larger group does not that what the group does applies to you. Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another source claiming SWC engages in Israel advocacy . ImTheIP (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meh - a random unsigned and undated PDF - from nfty.org is not a RS for SWC (heck - I'm not sure this would be a RS for the opinion of Nfty!). Searching for desired keywords leading to marginal sources.... Isn't how we build articles. Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why wouldn't that be a reputable source? Yes, that was the first one I could find. But there are many that claims that SWC enganges in Israel advocacy (and you know it...). Its mission statement "stands with Israel" even implies it. ImTheIP (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

text:  More sources , , ,  ImTheIP (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  While these seem to fit the bill of anything that can be found online with a keyword search - these do not seem to be RSes. Heck a couple of them were profiled by the ADL and/or SWC.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I suggest you take it up with the reputable sources noticeboard, because in my mind these shows that SWC engages in Israel advocacy. ImTheIP (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:ONUS on you. I've reverted this sourced to wzo.org.il - as we would generally only use them for attributed claims, and the web document itself doesn't say "Israel advocacy" in relation to SWC.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel Advocacy 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: This article states that the SWC is "known for...combating anti-Semitism". The SWC defines antisemitism in a highly controversial way, stating, for example, that Barack Obama's failure to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 constitutes antisemitism. Saying that SWC is known for combating antisemitism seems to imply that the way they define antisemitism is correct, a violation of |NPOV. I think it would be more neutral to say that confronting anti-Semitism is included in their mission statement. 
The Terrible Travis (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible violation of NPOV 

message: This source for this  claims that
The source text doesn't take the 4% seriously, and neither should we.Stix1776 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "4% of African-Americans self-identified as Black Hebrew Israelites in 2019"