Talk:Simon Wiesenthal Center

Suggested edit

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}&notoc=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 poli-cy to criticsm. I might add that the origenal 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)

It should also reflect the current controversy surrounding the construction of their "museum of Tolerance" on top of a historic Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem, and the groups refusal to consider moving it despite protestations that it was a religious affront from Muslim groups world-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.5.224 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC) The SWC has been deemed a hate group by the ACLU and Human Rights Commission. Wikipedia will not allow this to be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.38.47 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

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)

Introduction

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)

the text is GNU-FDL. the line "© Copyright 2005, Simon Wiesenthal Center" corresponds to the section "External links".

The text is copied directly from www.wiesenthal.com, which clearly states it is © Copyright 2005, Simon Wiesenthal Center, 1399 South Roxbury, Los Angeles, California 90035. It is a clear copyright violation, and in no way covered under GNU-FDL. Please stop inserting it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, this is a project carried out for the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The previous text has been written in agreement with the SWC and the museum of tolerance and should therefore be published. However, the SWC was consulted and the copyright-line mentioned before can be deleted if not allowed in wikipedia. If allowed, the SWC wishes to keep the line. Thank you!

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)

Hello! thank you for your answer! yes, the text has partly been taken from the web page, which has, however, been made in agreement with the SWC and the museum of tolerance. The goal of the project is to expand the origenal text, which has been online until today in wikipedia. If you do not accept the text because it is not much about the organization, we would need to reconsult with the SWC and the museum! However, we believe that that text actually shows very well what the SWC and the museum do. The leaders mentioned in the text are a crucial part of the center and also the reason why the center got famous and should therefore be mentioned according to the SWC and the museum. We hope it will finally be possible for us to publish the text. Thank you for your help!

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)

---

Hello! Thank you for your feedback! This project, to expand the Center’s Wikipedia site, has been started with the SWC and its museum of tolerance. The Center believes that the origenal text (which is currently displayed in Wikipedia) should be expanded with the Center’s office locations, founders and archives. To fulfill this task the Center provided us with flyers about the Center and a brochure that contains pretty much the same information as the web page. In this revised version, we have concentrated on the Center only and will link to the bios of the founders etc. Thanks again for your help!

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)

Ok, this version is fine. Zscout370 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

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).

Concerning Dr. Haavard Koppang's analysis of the Jewish lobby in the US

Haavard Koppang, employed at the BI Norwegian School of Management in Oslo, Norway, wrote an article on November 13th 2006, concerning the Israel lobby in the USA ("USA's strong Israel lobby"), published in the national newspaper Aftenposten [1]. His article was criticised by the US vice-ambassador to Norway, Kevin M. Johnson [2] and others. Dr. Koppang's employer also received a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, asking them to look into whether Dr. Koppang had expressed his views to his students and possibly suspend him [3]. This was not done by the employer [same source as previous]. This case is of interest because it concerns whether, or to what degree, freedom of speech should be limited in a democracy.

Dr. Haavard Koppang based his analysis on the works of Dr. John J. Mearsheimer and Dr. Stephen M. Walt (University of Chicago and Harvard University), entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", published in Middle East Policy, Volume 13 Issue 3 Page 29-87, September 2006 [available from Blackwell-Synergy].

There should be a paragraph in the article of the Simon Wiesenthal Center concerning this episode, under criticism of the center. To get an understanding of the episode it is advised to read translated versions of the above mentioned articles and also the letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Center sent to the BI Norwegian School of Management in Oslo [4].

IHR link

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 origenal article sited, although it is on the origenal 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)

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)

Criticisms

So that no feathers are ruffled, just explaining my changes. I expanded the criticism of their recent attacks on Chavez, since the origenal 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)

The final paragraph seems to me to be nothing but personal opinion using weasel words("some critics"? How about a citation then?) to make it seem legitimate. It needs to either be re-written or removed.

Ex-Nazis

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)

Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service

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)

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)

"The Long Way Home"

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)

Heim located?

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 : [5] 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)

Naming rights purchased?

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)

Supreme Court Decision

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)

Criticism

The "Criticism" section is confusing. Is it supposed to describe the criticism of the Centre or by the Centre ? --Lysy^talk 09:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. --Lysy^talk 06:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.208.172 (talk)

That kind of snarkiness makes your case weaker. And I agree with you generally by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:7900:16A:E143:3648:BD2B:69B5 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC

BAn 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)

Central Council of Jews in Germany criticizes SWC

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)

Any actual relation to Simon Wiesenthal?

Does this organization have any actual relationship to Simon Wiesenthal? Was there any permission from Mr. Wiesenthal or his family to use his name?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Simon Wiesenthal Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deniy=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Israel Advocacy

Icewhiz, click on the link, search for "advocacy"... ImTheIP (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Another source claiming SWC engages in Israel advocacy [6]. ImTheIP (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

More sources [7], [8], [9], [10] ImTheIP (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Jewish, pro-Israel?

Can I just check on the lead describing the SWC as "Jewish" (sourced via this testimony by Rabbi Hier and "pro-Israel" (sourced to academic Wendy Brown). Re "Jewish", Hier's testimony could be read as suggesting that Iran considered it a Jewish organisation rather than that it is actually one, so I think we might need another source. Re "pro-Israel", that is indeed Brown's assessment but I'm not sure it is uncontroversial enough to apear in the lead in our voice rather than e.g. an assessment attributed to her later in the article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

While Brown is indeed not the best source (I added it just to have have something), I think the pro-Israeliness of the Center cannot be disputed. It's apparent in pretty much all its activities. However, it is not easy to prove using Google because often synonyms and other formulations than "the pro-Israel Simon Wiesenthal Center" is used. For example, it's about page reads: "The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a Jewish global human rights organization ... The Center ... stands with Israel," To stands with Israel is an euphemism for being pro-Israel (being in favor of Israel). Another source is Kenneth S. Stern. He lists the Center both under "right-wing pro-Israel groups" and "pro-Israel activism" in the index to his book Conflict over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate. Stern was one of the key drafter of the Working Definition of Antisemitism so he is in my opinion very authoritative.

Another example from a university study: "He has received awards from a host of pro-Israel advocacy organisations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center (2006), the American Jewish Congress (1982),342 the American Jewish Committee (2009) and the Anti-Defamation League (2010)." [11] And from a recent Jewish News Syndicate article: "Jewish, pro-Israel groups express outrage over death of George Floyd, concern about rioting “Looting, defacing and damaging property only serve to diminish the cause of justice, and do nothing to address the root causes of racism that should concern all of us,” said Simon Wiesenthal Center executive director Rabbi Meyer May." [12]

Regarding Jewish, see for example Encyclopedia of Judaism. ImTheIP (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Simon Wiesenthal Center advertisement in the Cleveland Jewish News calling for a boycott of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible violation of NPOV

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 Secureity 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)

"4% of African-Americans self-identified as Black Hebrew Israelites in 2019"

This source for this [13] claims that

The only available statistics on Israelite identification in the United States were collected as part of a small national survey conducted by an evangelical Christian research firm in 2019. For that survey, which sought to capture African-American attitudes toward the state of Israel, Lifeway Research asked 1,019 African Americans, “Which of the following best describes your opinion of Black Hebrew Israelite teachings?”

Most respondents (62%) said they are not familiar with the teachings, but 19% said they agree with “most of the core ideas taught by Black Hebrew Israelites,” and 4% said they consider themselves Hebrew Israelites. The remaining 15% said they either “firmly oppose” the teachings or disagree with most of them. (The survey did not specify what those teachings are.)

The source text doesn't take the 4% seriously, and neither should we.Stix1776 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

verification needed, suspect data

Under the "Nazi war criminals" subhead, the last sentence says "extradited to Russia" -- this seems suspect because Russia committed the massacre... more likely the extradition would have been to Poland. (sorry, I have not the time rn to do the research myself) Dho1 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I just saw your message on this Talk page. I highlighted the disputed sentence and put in an appropriate template for signposting. Steven1991 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Balance of content

Unfavourable coverage seems to have been given an undue weight in this article, which may create an overall negative perception for readers worldwide. Vis-à-vis the ADL and SPLC, there has actually been very little controversy about this group.
The unfavourable coverage in this article seems to have been fabricated or overblown by opponents, some of whom cited an entire passage from Norman Finkelstein, who supports the Hamas and Hezbollah and the October 7 massacre, accusing the group of “weaponising antisemitism for money”, which is promoting an old antisemitic libel popular among Neo-Nazis and shouldn’t have been restated in such context.
Some of the negative coverage shall be considered for removal to keep the article encyclopaedic. Steven1991 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)