Talk:Night (memoir)/Archive 1

Death by fire

It's interesting that the quote on this page is carefully selected, to ostensibly look like he's talking about the smoke from the crematoria.

But Wiesel's claims were that Jews were thrown into fire pits and burned alive (this early propoganda rumour was the reason for the original term "The Holocaust")... he doesn't say anything about gas chambers in his book.

Just a prime example of the way the whole Holohoax story is meticulously pruned of all evidence to the contrary. Unsigned by User:Merrick

Well, Be Bold and change it, man! JFW | T@lk 21:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charming . . .

I'd like to try a rewrite of this if no one minds. If anyone does, please let me know. SlimVirgin 07:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

---

Why does this article have two summaries? I think we should settle on one, or merge them together, or something. Jwrosenzweig 05:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As well, the page focuses too much on Wiesel as opposed to the book; we already have an article on Wiesel. Also, it is not clear enough in clarifying that it is not an autobiography, but a short novel based on his experiences. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually in the middle of a rewrite, started then abandoned because of other pages that seemed more pressing, but I can go back to it. Mine focuses more on the book, telling Wiesel's story by telling the story in the book. I'l try to put it up within the next few days so you can see what you think. Feel free to revert back to this one if you don't like it. SlimVirgin 05:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

So many pages to fix, so little time... Jayjg ^(talk) 05:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

Hi James and Jay, I've put the rewrite on the page. It's not completely finished, but almost. I'll be replacing the map of Sighet with a better-looking one: I'm currently waiting for written permission to use the one I want, but I've been told informally that it's on its way. And I would like to add a brief literary criticism section at the end. I tried to do it using online and library resources but couldn't find anything good, so I've sent off for a couple of books and I'll write it when they arrive. I also want to find out more about how many copies the book has sold, and other publishing details. Feel free to revert or edit this as you see fit. SlimVirgin 02:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jay, regarding your point about it not being pure autobiography, I hope to find out more details about that from the books I'm waiting for. SlimVirgin 02:18, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

A very evocative personal essay on this book! Excellent! The bibliography of books by Elie Wiesel belongs at Elie Wiesel but rather than interfere, I'll just copy it there. --Wetman 08:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! I agree with Wetman in his assessment of the article; a vast improvement over the previous version. I also agree that the bibliography of Wiesel's books should be removed from here and placed in the Elie Wiesel article as well. If you have information about different editions of Night, that would be interesting for this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Night is one of literature's most powerful descriptions of humiliation and despair."

The statement in the opening that "Night is one of literature's most powerful descriptions of humiliation and despair" is pretty POV. Shouldn't it be attributed to somebody? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I kind of liked that sentence because it's very simple and I'd say undoubtedly accurate, but I take your point, so I'll look around for someone to quote instead. SlimVirgin 20:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wiesel's age

An anonymous editor has changed the caption listing Wiesel's age from 9 to 15. Which is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems an anon changed it from 15 to nine a few days ago; sorry, I didn't even notice it. The correct age is 15. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hottentot, could you discuss any proposed changes here first, please? I reverted the changes you made to the images, but restored your Chlomo/Shlomo change, but are you aware that Wiesel's publisher uses Chlomo in Night? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:55, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

About the Chlomo issue, it seems like the name Chlomo is only used in Night, which makes me wonder if that is the French version of Shlomo or something. Also, since the article is about the book, why have a picture of Wiesel on the top?

I used a photograph of Wiesel as he would have looked roughly when he had those experiences, which humanizes the article much more than the cover of the current English-language edition of the novel. Yes, Shlomo is much more common, though I wasn't quoting from the French edition; so long as we don't change anything in quotes, I don't suppose it matters. I'll look up what he uses in his other books. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I see you've changed it back again. Why do you prefer the book cover as the main illustration? The novel is about Wiesel's life at that age; it's not a novel about a book cover, which is anyway a transient thing that could change tomorrow. I'd say it's more appropriate to show a photograph of the subject and author, and that particular photograph is haunting: he has great eyes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

How about we put both the book cover and the picture of Wiesel on the top page? --Hottentot

Sure, give it a go and see what it looks like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't look so good :-( --User:Hottentot

Have a look at the two edits I made called "too weird" and "or?" Probably a bit cluttered. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... Then I guess we can just go with your version having the picture of Wiesel on the top. --User:Hottentot

---

Symbolism, Motifs, Themes, and Literary Devices

Anyone have anything to add on this topic? I believe this entry could really be improved in this regard.

For instance: Fire symbolizes God's power, judgments, and identity. By allowing the Germans to usurp this power, Elie feels God both lacks Divine mercy as well as true power over man.

It would be good to add material like this. I had some difficulty finding books about Night, or reputable websites (there are study guides, but they never have bylines), so I sent off for a couple of used books, no longer in print, and now I've lost them, which is why I haven't done anything yet. I know they're in this room somewhere, but ... ;-) We can't add our own opinions, but if you have any secondary texts you can refer to, feel free to be bold. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

I've started the process of converting this from Harvard references to footnotes. If anyone objects, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Format of quotations

The quotation beginning "For a part of a second" in the Auschwitz section looks just like the rest of the text. Looking at the source code, I see that it has <blockquote><div style="font-size:93%;">, just like other quotations, but it doesn't appear indented at all. I presume this is caused by having the image to the left of that quotation, but I still think it should look different from the rest of the text, to make it stand out as a quotation, even if the blockquote coding is abandoned and colons inserted manually. Unless, of course, it's just the way it appears for my browser. I'm using Internet Explorers and Windows XP. AnnH ♫ 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann, yes it's probably the image. I'll either add quotes, indent further, or move the image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

When you say it looks just like the rest of the text, are you seeing it smaller than the rest, or the same size? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The same size. There's nothing at all in the format to show to distinguish it from the rest of the text. I've just looked at it in Mozilla as well. AnnH ♫ 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I wonder if I need to go smaller. I have it at 93 per cent at the moment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar problem in the Buchenwald section, but I think I've fixed them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Buchenwald section looks fine. AnnH ♫ 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I reduced the blockquotes to 92 percent. Do you see the text as smaller now? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it still looks the same. AnnH ♫ 10:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Ann. I'll have to find some technical help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Shrinking the quotes makes them very hard to read, I've had some people complain about shrunken refs being too small, these are way too small and as a part of the main text should be the same size as the text.--Peta 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

People find the text hard to read when blockquotes are the same size as the rest of the text, and it's standard in publishing to reduce them for that reason. I started off with 95 per cent, because I wanted to make them just a little smaller, but people couldn't see a difference, so I tried 94, 93, 92, and eventually someone suggested just using "small," so that's what I went with. Of course, I can't see how small it is for you. For me, it looks the same as 92 per cent, which isn't too small. I use Mac and Firefox; perhaps others see it differently. Is it too small for anyone else? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it's too small for me. I use Windows XP and (usually) Internet Explorer, although I looked at it in Firefox just now, and it's too small there as well. AnnH ♫ 06:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you having to squint to read them, and is it making reading the text unpleasant? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes to both. AnnH ♫ 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Ann. I'll look around for another solution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you think about using {{cquote}}? Catherine also made a follow-up {{cquote2}}. Some people indeed do have problems reading smaller fontsizes. So, if you could do it in "normal" fontsize, this would be good. It's also very difficult to pick the "right" smaller font. I have seen that some featured articles are doing it using indented italics (but italics are harder to read too...). Next best thing would be to try putting the fontsize into a CSS class. But that might be quite difficult because it needs non-local consensus about the fontsize. (Apologies for stepping in here, I haven't contributed to this fine article here, so I might look a bit odd here. SlimVirgin asked me for some input about fontsizes. So, here I am :-). --Ligulem 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ligulem. I'm not sure about the cquote thing. I've seen people speak out against them a couple of times on FA candidates. Maybe if the quote marks were a bit smaller, but I'll try them out later anyway. Is this <div style="font-size:92%;"> an example of a CSS class? That's what I was doing before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No. <div style="font-size:92%;"> is just a direct instruction for a relative fontsize, which should be avoided in webpages. Cascading Style Sheets classes are a mean to define styles for elements of webpages in a single place. For example we have MediaWiki:Common.css on this site here, which defines the class "references-small", which is used as <div class="references-small">..</div> in this article here. But this won't solve your primary problem. If you do want to have a smaller font, you still have to choose one :). However, CSS has the benefit, that you can override the styles in your User:SlimVirgin/monobook.css (in case you use the monobook skin, which is the default). For example I have overriden the class "references-small" in my User:Ligulem/monobook.css to be 100%, because I have problems reading small fonts and I do (did :-) a lot on formatting references. Taking care about the different needs of people reading webpages makes you a good webmaster. And we are all some sort of webmasters here. With webpages you do have the problem that every browser displays them a little bit different. That's one of the main drawbacks of html. That problem is inexistent for example in PDF or print. Apologies for not being such a big help here. --Ligulem 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're being a big help. I really appreciate all this information. So what I really need to do is prepare this in PDF format, and replace the text on the page with a PDF link? It would give a whole new meaning to WP:OWN.

If people who find small too small can override it, does it not make sense to leave the text as small for people who can read it easily? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a style question and thus highly wiki-political (how can we find consensus on taste :-). I refrain from answering that, as I'm totally POVvy on taste issues. But for some people it is a question of "I can't read that, it's too small". But if they really want to read it, they could zoom (if they knew how to zoom their browser). However, zooming a page in a typical browser renders the page in suboptimal quality (another problem of current browsers). A web encyclopedia is not the same as a paper encyclopedia. It has some benefits and some drawbacks. That's the business of webmasters. --Ligulem 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about putting all the quotations in italics? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

They can be a little hard to read. Also, I'd lose the distinction between the narrator's voice and others, though I could use quotation marks for one of them. Personally I'd prefer to keep the font small. I don't know how objectionable anyone else would find that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, I may as well try a percentage again. Ann said it made no difference to her (looked the same as the rest of the text), and it looked small but not too small for me. So maybe that's the best thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

SV, I've noticed that "small" is even smaller than "references-small", at least on my browser. Perhaps you might want to switch the quotes to "references-small" size as a compromise. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't think to look whether they were different. I'll try that now. I'll do the first block quote in references-small and perhaps you can tell me whether it looks different to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, quick work, and it makes a big difference. To my eye the "references-small" is about 2/3 the size of standard type, whereas the "small" is about 1/2 the size. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant, Jay, thanks for thinking of that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the size is better now. Just one last complaint before I go on a wikibreak to finish assignments: I don't like spaces between the word and the footnote. But regardless of whether I like it or not, they should all be consistent. A quick glance suggested that the first four footnotes had the <ref> right after the punctuation mark, but the next five had spaces in between. I'd fix it myself, except that I'm too busy. Congratulations on all the work you did to get it up to FA status, Slim. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Ann. I'll make them consistent. I hadn't even noticed it had been promoted. ;-) Have a good wikibreak. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

photography of the burning corpses

it's not true that the photographer is unknown: the picture was taken in august 1944 by alberto errera, a jew from larissa in greece. he was a member of the group of resistance that existed within the sonderkommando. under great difficulties, and only in cooperation with the organisation of resistance that existed in the rest of the camp, it was possible to give the photography to polish partisans outside the camp. from them, it got into the hands of the "commitee for the aid of prisoners in concentration camps" in krákow. 85.178.109.173 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)ingrid brabendererde, 6. oktober 2006, 17:19 and: i'm quoting this from a book which i unfortunately only have in german, but anyway: friedler, eric u.a.: zeugen aus der todeszone. das jüdische sonderkommando in auschwitz. zu Klampen Verlag. Lüneburg 2002. p. 214.

Thank you for that information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Error

The article summary says that they went from Birkenau to Buna, but in the text is says that they went from Auschwitz II-Birkenau to Auschwitz I (Wiesel just calls it Auschwitz, but you can tell that it's Auschwitz I by the "work will set you free" gates) and then to Auschwitz III-Buna. Sykil 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sykil. I don't have the book with me right now, but I'll look it up as soon as I can. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Someone has moved the article from Night (book) to Night (novel). I've moved it back for now, as I don't think there is any consensus for the move. It has been characterized as a number of different things, but in my view calling it a "novel" is tantamount to supporting the position of Holocaust Deniers that Weisel made the whole story up. "Book" seems completely neutral in this context. Let's get some consensus for a move before doing so unilaterally. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Article from LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot20dec20,0,6296362.column?coll=la-home-commentary

Hitler's Mideast helpers Arabs were cheerleaders and enablers of the Final Solution. December 20, 2006

.......that "the German people sacrificed 10 million" — implying that the killers suffered more than their victims.

Ahmadinejad ...flatly calls the Holocaust a myth. But he is hardly a model of consistency. At the same time that he denies the Holocaust, Iran's president claims that Israel was established by the Europeans as penance for … the Holocaust. But why atone for something that didn't occur? Never mind. Ahmadinejad says that "if the Europeans are honest" in their claims about the Holocaust, "they should give some of their provinces in Europe … to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe."

---

Wiesel, in an interview to Israeli paper sais that we are now in 1938 all over again and that the world has forgot. 89.0.157.185 06:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Shlomo or Chlomo?

An anonymous editor (72.80.241.117) has changed several (but not all) of the "Shlomo"s to "Chlomo"s. I'm not familiar enough with the book to know if this is a good faith edit or not. Since the same anon also changed "[W]e" to "We" and "[He]" to "He", I'm inclined to believe that the S to C is a well-meaning edit, whether it's a good one or not. Obviously the [W] is to show that within the original quotation it wasn't a capital W, but one could be forgiven for not realising that. As the article stands now, there are several instances of "Shlomo" and several of "Chlomo". Since I don't know which it's supposed to be, I'm reluctant to jump right in. ElinorD 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elinor, this has been going on for some time, the swapping back and forth between spellings. Wiesel transliterated his father's name in Night as Chlomo, though Shlomo is by far and away more common in English. I've been advised that Chlomo is the transliteration used in France; as Wiesel went to live in France after liberation, and Night was published in French before English, it makes sense that he used the French transliteration and just carried it over. However, in his later work, he writes Shlomo. He has also released a new edition of Night, which probably uses Shlomo too, though I've not checked that. I will later today.

To stop the reverting, I'm planning on picking one spelling, probably Shlomo as it's more common, and putting an invisible note in the article for future reverters. Thanks for helping to sort it out, and please let me know if you think we should stick with Chlomo. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm happy with Shlomo, though in any case, my opinion wouldn't count for much, since I didn't even know there were two spellings! I just wanted it to be the same throughout. Thanks. ElinorD 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

spoiler

You should write in the begining {{spoiler}}

Tag removal

I added a tag for this article having too many quotes. It was removed but I brought it back because I keep my opinion. It seems, compared to many other articles here, a lot of this article is analysis of the book and background context, not information about the book itself. --Fez2005 05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section on "Critical reception"?

This is an important and widely read book (by a Nobel Laureate). Shouldn't there be a section on "Critical reception"? Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wiesel15(3).jpg

Image:Wiesel15(3).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg

Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wieselghetto.jpg

Image:Wieselghetto.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NightWiesel.jpg

Image:NightWiesel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiesel's discussion with the rebbe

A quote is included near the end of the article that has Wiesel admitting that some of the stories he tells, while "true," were not actual occurrences. The inclusion of this quote in an article about Night implies that Wiesel essentially admitted the fictionality of some elements of Night. However, there is nothing in this quote that explicitly names Night as a story containing fictional elements. Could Wiesel have been talking about Dawn and Day (which are clearly fictional, or so I've been told)? If he could have been talking about some "story" other than Night, what is the purpose of the quote's inclusion here? Let's not imply connections and statements that have not been explicitly made by outside sources. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Several days after the above post was made (by me), I see no reply, so I have boldly removed the passage in question. In sum: the passage never clearly states that it is relevant to Night; therefore, the presence of the passage implies a connection which, AFAIK, does not exist. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice passage, leave it be. It adds color to the article -- Y not? 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the source specifically brings up this story in a discussion of exactly how true or literal the book Night is; in other words, it explicitly makes the connection. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Y: "Color" is not what this or any article needs. Relevant content is what is needed.

Jayjg: Thank you for explaining that the source indicates the passage's relevance to Night. Unfortunately, the information included in the article does not make this clear. I assume you have access to the source (else, how would you know it explicitly makes the connection); could you provide the context readers need to understand the relevance of this passage? Thanks, Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The context is provided by this Featured Article; read the section Night (book)#Memoir or novel, of which this quote is a part. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The context is suggested, but that is all. There is no evidence given (in the article) that the passage I deleted is directly relevant to Night. There is evidence that it relates to some of Wiesel's many, many writings, and the placement of the passage suggests that it relates to Night specifically, but there is no citation that indicates Wiesel's statements to the rebbe were made with Night in mind. If you say that the source makes the connection, then I believe you, but I want to see that connection explicitly made (and cited) in the article. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 12:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the relevance is clear. Ruth Franklin in the paragraph above writes that, " ... truth in prose, it turns out, is not always the same thing as truth in life," speaking specifically of Night. Wiesel says the same thing in the next paragraph, not explicitly talking of Night, but knowing that his words would be regarded as relevant to it. The source we use (Gary Weissman) says Wiesel's statement is of great interest to Holocaust scholars in relation to Night. Nevertheless, as we make clear elsewhere, Wiesel has insisted that Night is not a novel, but a "deposition." And so, writes Weissman, we are simply left with a conundrum.

This is an interesting and appropriate note to end the article on, given that the issue is not really resolvable. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good. I am not trying to disagree with what you say, but I want to use your words to illustrate or clarify the point I'm trying to get across.

"Ruth Franklin in the paragraph above writes [...]" Yes, she does, and the difference between "the paragraph above" and the passage I'm discussing is that Franklin's paragraph clearly indicates that she is speaking about Night.

"Wiesel says [...], not explicitly talking of Night, [...]" Ok, then why is this passage here, and not in Elie Wiesel?

"but knowing that his words would be regarded as relevant to it" I'm sorry, but as the article now stands, this is an assumption with no evident basis in a reliable source.

The source is Weissman, as you note below. But even with no source linking it to Night, this is a 2+2=4 situation. He's written a text that he says is true, and that others say is not (or, at least, not entirely factual). Wiesel responds with a story about how things that didn't happen can be true nonetheless. Obviously, readers are going to link the two issues, as we did, and as Weissman did. The linkage doesn't necessarily mean that Night is not entirely factual, but it gives us some insight into Wiesel's concept of truth, and how a more literary (as opposed to philosophical or logical) concept of truth might be needed with an issue such as the Holocaust, in order to convey the power and the horror of it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"The source we use (Gary Weissman) says [...]" Yes! Good! This is what I've been looking for! As soon as someone with access to the source cites this in the article, I will be completely satisfied. As the article stands right now, the vast majority of readers don't know what Weissman says or why this passage appears specifically in Night (book) rather than in Elie Wiesel.

I want to make one thing clear: despite my edit a couple of days ago, my agenda is not to have this passage removed from Wikipedia. My agenda is to either have this passage's specific connection to Night explained in the article, or to have the passage moved to a more general discussion of Wiesel's extensive writings. You folks have done a great job of explaining the connection here on the Talk page; I just wish it were explained as well (with citations) in the article. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Example for illustrative purposes (the changed text is bold):

Wiesel tells a story about a visit to a Rebbe, or Hasidic rabbi, he hadn't seen for 20 years. The Rebbe is upset to learn that Wiesel has become a writer, and wants to know what kind of material he writes. "Stories," Wiesel replies, "... true stories."

"About people you knew?" Yes, about people I might have known. "About things that happened?" [...trimming for the Talk page...] "Things are not that simple, Rebbe. Some events do take place but are not true; others are, although they never occurred.

Weissman argues that, although the issue of Night`s reliability as a historical account may never be resolved, Wiesel's conversation with the Rebbe offers insight into the intersection of truth and fact in Wiesel's writing.

I can't verify that this is what Weissman argues, to say nothing of citing it. Note that the other Weissman citations tend to be done as individual pages. I hope this example, however, shows what I'm trying to do, and I hope my... what? five?... explanations have finally shown why I'm trying to do it. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of yours above isn't necessary. We wanted the writing in this article to be good (in order to get it to FA, in part), and in terms of writing, it's currently wrapped up nicely, as a sort of "show, don't tell." But it also obeys Wikipedia policy in that it cites a source who links the passage to the discussion about Wiesel's Holocaust narratives, including Night. There's no need to make the linkage more explicit, which I think would end the article on a clunky note. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As the article now stands, readers are forced to assume that Weissman links Wiesel's anecdote to Night specifically, and readers who aren't willing to make that assumption will speculate that a WP editors was trying to imply a connection which doesn't exist. I don't think that's in keeping with the spirit of any policy or guideline. In terms of obeying the letter of policies and guidelines, the only support I can find is MOS:QUOTE under "Attribution": "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." Note also WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for explanation of why identifying Wiesel as the speaker is insufficient.

Wiesel is the author and is named in the text. We really don't need in-text attribution for everyone who has linked what he said to Night. It's worth bearing in mind that the section is called "Truth and memory," and this quote from Wiesel is highly appropriate for it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't want to get bogged down in legalisms, and I don't want to lose this article its featured status. If I don't get any support after this post, I will drop the issue. Thanks for your patience. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the writing is stronger and more interesting the way it currently is. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Publication dates

I found some contradictory information in the article. The info box gives 1955 for Un di Velt Hot Geshvign, and 1958 for the English edition. The section Writing and publishing Night indicates he wrote it on a ship in 1954, and it was published the same year.
So question 1: in Yiddish in 1954 or 1955? (I can't google up anything, could try the library Monday)
The same section gives 1958 for the French edition, and 1960 for the Hill & Wang version in English. I searched and found reference to the Hill & Wang edition (can still buy it) but nothing earlier in English.
So question 2: in English in 1958 or 1960? and if 1958 is only for the French edition, would that be worth adding to the info box? Jd2718 (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If the infobox is wrong, it's because people keep changing it without checking their sources or the article, as you did today. :-) In fairness, though, the publishing process here was a complicated business. My recollection is that he wrote it in Yiddish in 1954 on the ship. He gave it to an Argentinian publisher he met on that ship (I'm writing only from memory here), and it was published in Argentina in 1955. If the source says it was the same year, then he must have met the publisher on the ship in 1955; that's not inconsistent with his having written it in 1954. Ship journeys can take weeks or months.

It was first published in French in 1958, and in English in 1960.

I've written half a dozen times to Wiesel to check these dates, among other things. I kept getting e-mails back from his secretary indicating that she didn't understand the questions, so I gave up. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't you who changed the box today, JD. I got you mixed up with another editor who posted a note about it on my talk page. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How certain are you of the 1955 date? (If you are near 100%, I'll stop searching, but note Fantasies of Witnessing, Gary Weissman (scroll to page 71) (book is already included in the article's references. He gives 1956, but you may find the author's explanation of the cuts from the Yiddish to the French (from which it appears that the English is translated) more interesting, even if the detail is too fine for the WP article. Brittanica, fwiw, also gives 1956 for the Yiddish. An article by Kessler in Forward (doesn't look like it's related to the NY Forvits, pardon the spelling) also gives 1956. [http://books.google.com/books?id=8sbtTtJyUgYC Wieviorka and Stark) also give 1956. It could be that all come from a single erroneous source.

It does seem that a few scholars have sought to show that the Yiddish was angrier. Does this merit mention in either of the final two sections? Jd2718 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, Jd; I only just saw this. We do say something about the Yiddish being angrier. See the section on Memoir or novel, from the paragraph starting, "The simplicity and power of the narrative has come at the cost of literal truth, writes Franklin" to the end of the section.

As for the dates, thank you for finding those sources. I'll look through them and the ones in the article more carefully tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I missed it, thank you. That's exactly what I found other sources saying. Jd2718 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Buchenwald

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that he was only imprisoned at Auschwitz, and not Buchenwald. While in the opening paragraph it states he spent time in the concentration camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.202.75 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP edits by anon IP

I have reverted the edits by an anon IP because they allege fraud against a living person with improper sourcing. As I noted on the IP's talk page, BLP also applies to talk pages, and we may not post derogatory information about a living person without providing multiple high-quality reliable sources from reputable mainstream publications. Crum375 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Moshe?

"Moshe the Beadle" should actually be "Moishe the Beadle." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killersimp (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Jlynn9698, 29 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the name "Moshe the Beadle" to Moishe the Beadle". This is how the name is spelled in the book and is the actual spelling of the Hebrew name. Also, Please change, in the introductory paragraph, the names of the concentration camps from "Auschwitz and Buchenwall" to "Auschwitz and Birkenau". That is the name in the book and also the closest actual concentration camp to Auschwitz during the Holocaust.

Jlynn9698 (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My memory tells me you are correct on all accounts - I have made the changes.

 Done and thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 16:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I undid this. If you can provide quotes plus page numbers to support your claims, it would be greatly appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"They Called him Moishe the Beadle, as if his entire life he never had a surname."

"...like them. Moishe the Beadle was the exception."

Page 3, from the Book preview on Amazon.com: see here. :)

Also:

"We had arrived. In Birkenau." -Pg 28.

"Dr. Mengele, the very same who had recived us in Birkenau." - pg 71. ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the removal of Buchenwald? Birkenau and Auschwitz are essentially the same place. Search your Amazon link for "buchenwald". (E.g. p. 101: "...my father and myself. We had arrived in Buchenwald.") Crum375 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Moishe" is a nickname of "Moshe", and other versions of the book use Moshe (or Moche).[1] Crum375 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Avicennasis, Birkenau was one of the Auschwitz camps. We were referring to Buchenwald in the lead. And it's Moshe in the edition we're using, which follows the first English edition. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I will defer to your version. ^Avicenna_sis @ 23:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Caption in "Writing and publishing" section

The caption of the image which say's "Wiesel at Buchenwald, second row, seventh from the left, April 16, 1945" is ambiguous: second row from the top or second row from the bottom? Sadads (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Second from bottom; I've clarified. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Good! Makes sense, just wasn't sure, Sadads (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, Sadads. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the book's publication in the US!

According to the article. Not sure what day.

I just want to make sure people noticed that, since I don't see it stated explicitly. 160.39.220.66 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, it's in the lead and the infobox. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken revert

Just want to note here that when I reverted this, I meant only to remove the material about his friend as unsourced, not the village/town issue. Sorry about that; not sure how it happened. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

More specific than "Yiddish"?

"Un di Velt Hot Geschvign" is reported in this article to by Yiddish for "and the world remained silent. It seems barely distinguishable, except in spelling, from standard German: "Und die Welt hat geschwiegen". But there seem to be so many different versions of Yiddish that maybe something more specific should be said to identify the language. Google Translate couldn't handle it at all when I tried to go from Yiddish to English, and when I entered the English phrase to get a translation into Yiddish, it came out in the Hebrew alphabet, which I don't know. Is such specificity possible? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael, there are different dialects, but whether that would affect the written language I don't know, and it wouldn't affect the translation. Or was that not what you meant? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Yiddish language is actually written in Hebrew characters, and therefore any spelling of Yiddish words using Roman/Latin characters is actually a transliteration. As the roots of Yiddish are in Middle High German (with various loan words from Russian, other Slavic languages and Hebrew itself), it is not surprising that the Yiddish words for the title are very close to modern "Hochdeutsch". There is no single "correct" transliteration, and the one given in the article is an acceptable one.--Partnerfrance (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So why does this stump Google? Is Google's translation program that bad? I've observed that it's deficient sometimes, especially when translating whole sentences, but this seems like a really simple sentence. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you would need to write it in the original alphabet, rather than using the transliteration. Is there something about the translation you find problematic? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reference: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/414941/Night Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote box and photo overlap

I know it's hard to make changes while an article is on the main page. However, in Safari the quote box beginning: ‘’’’Never shall I forget that night, the...” lapses over onto the photo “Members of the...”. I checked and it does not occur on Firefox and I didn’t try IE. I thought I’d mention it in case anyone knows how to fix this for Safari. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a little. Would you mind looking again in Safari to see if it's fixed? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine in Safari now. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Date in lede

I think placing "(1960 in English)" immediately after the book title, aside from being somewhat inelegant, is slightly misleading, or at least inexact, since the book was first published in 1955 in Yiddish and later in French, as more fully explained further on in the lede. Is there a better way to word this? Station1 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not ideal. For most of the article's existence, I had no date there, but it started to look like a significant omission. Giving a year helps the reader to orient himself. I'd normally give the first date of publication (1955), and maybe we should do that here. It's just that it was a significantly different book that was published in 1955; it's not just that it was translated into different languages, it was completely rewritten. So I don't know how to handle it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the concern. The lede is somewhat long, but I think the publication history is adequately explained at the end of the second and beginning of the third paragraphs and in the infobox. Perhaps that could be summarized into a sentence and moved up to the first paragraph, with details coming later in the article. But I think adding the year of English translation parenthetically after the first word is redundant at best, and, as you note, considering the complexity of publication history, is ambiguous. Station1 (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it for now, and we can maybe continue to think about a workaround, assuming we need one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Student Summary

As an eighth grader I had to read the book Night. I thought it was a good book because I usually like non-fiction books like the one I read. It was a book about a boy named Eliezer who tells you about his life partially before during and partially after the Holocaust. One of the main facts of the book were one that I learned in my social studies book is that one of the camps is Auschwitz which tells me it is nonfiction. The main character shares about his family life and what happens to them after the holocaust. His family is separated early on and that is the last time he sees his mother and sisters. His father stays with him throughout the book and was at the same beds and camp his father dies though while calling Eliezer water which haunted the character in the six months following his father’s death. There were many times that he could have escaped, but he stayed with his father. For instance when the Russian front was moving towards one of the camps he was fresh out of foot surgery when they had migrate and he had the option to stay behind, but he did not because he wanted to be with his father. His foot was fine but he later discovered that the people who stayed behind in the hospital of the camp were liberated by the Russians. He also references his escape from the wrath of Nazi Germany and how it happens. He mentions the dates of the main events of the book throughout your reading. This makes a picture in my mind which I really enjoy to have. I think this book would be good for people interested in World War 2 history. It wouldn’t be good for people who are easily scared or do not like to hear about horrific events like the Holocaust. I enjoyed it very much because I am a fan of World War 2 history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southstudent2 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chat forum to discuss books nor is it a place to publish your personal interpretation and analysis/commentary. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He's an eighth grader, be proud he found his way to the talk page and figured out how to edit. Good job Southstudent, if you would like to contribute more to Wikipedia, feel free to make small changes to make the meaning of pages more clear. Also, you can help us with other tasks, if you want help, feel free to contact me on my talk page, Sadads (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestions

After looking through the lede of this article, I was frankly shocked to see the FA star here. The lede doesn't seem to summarize the article itself well—it goes off on a tangent on minutiae of the production and publication of the book, while glossing over large issues such the debate over whether the book is fact or fiction (to the extent that when I first skimmed the lede I thought this wasn't even addressed at all; only later did I find it buried in the third paragraph), or the issues introduced by translation (the lede doesn't even clearly state that the early version of the book was translated from Yiddish into French; the reader has to figure that out from decipering the last sentence of the third paragraph, which is thrown in without context). Overall, the lede reads like random parts of an article, rather than an actual summary.

In addition, the unintegrated quotations in the first paragraph are awkward to read and belong in the main body of the text anyway, not the lede. (The main text already appears to have far too many quotations, though.) The beginning of the second paragraph, about his father's death, is thrown in without any transition or context, such that I had to read it repeatedly and check the Elie Wiesel article before I could figure out if this was summarizing the book or an actual event.

I haven't sit down to read the body of the article but I noticed problems with it, as well, when I skimmed it. I already mentioned above that the quotations seem excessive. Also, the plot summary seems much too long and detailed.

I don't necessarily think this article needs to go to FAR or anything; these issues that I've mentioned are probably easy fixes, so I just wanted to mention them here rather than making a formal fuss out of it elsewhere. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I just look a look at the version from the FAC back in 2006, and I must say I think the lede in that version was much better than the current version; I think something like that would be an ideal to work towards. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as the person who wrote it, I disagree. Your point, for example, that the lead doesn't make clear he wrote it in Yiddish, then French:

"In 1954 he wrote an 865-page manuscript in Yiddish, published as the 245-page Un di Velt Hot Geshvign ("And the World Remained Silent") in Buenos Aires in 1955, and in May that year the French novelist François Mauriac persuaded him to write it for a wider audience.

"Even with Mauriac's help, finding a publisher was not easy—they said it was too morbid, nobody wanted to hear these stories—but 178 pages appeared in 1958 in France as La Nuit, and in 1960 a 116-page version was published in the United States as Night."

Hard to see how much clearer that could be.

As for the lead failing to summarize, which significant parts of the article are not alluded to in the lead? Also, as you say you haven't read the rest of the article, I'm wondering how can you know whether the lead summarizes it well. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I confess I haven't read the whole article yet, and I will try to do it later when I have a moment. The main point I was trying to express was, to be honest, after reading the lede I did not have a very good understanding at all of the subject, and many important facts in the lede--while they may technically be "there" if you look hard enough--were not easy for me to glean from the text without prior knowledge of what I should be looking for. I assume the current state of the lede is probably the result of a lot of discussions and compromising to make things factually accurate; I just wanted to let you know that, for a reader like me walking in with little prior knowledge of any of the issues, it was pretty difficult to read. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the whole thing when you have time, then go back and read the lead again. Perhaps I'm too close to it, but I see it as summarizing the issues clearly. The lead includes:

(a) the most basic historical facts: Holocaust, Second World War, he was a teenager sent to Auschwitz then Buchenwald;

(b) the key issue of the book: the inversion of the father-son/God-humankind relationship; the loss of humanity; the cruelty; the loss of faith;

(c) the key publishing details: first Yiddish, difficulty publishing it, then French, then English, now a core Holocaust text;

(d) the memoir/fiction debate, and how history became art;

(e) the relationship to his other books; the significance of the title.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

yet,strangely,some say that jesus never ived-that he si, ni effect,a creaion of some first-century men.answer ing such skeptics,the respected historian will durant ar-gued:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.162.96 (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 

Map

The map for his birth place Sighet doesn't make much sense, if it shows the location in the current political context. As he is born and grew up there at a time, when all the borders there were completely different, and, as it was before world war 2, even the composition of the population in those regions was completely different, the town's location should be shown on a political map of that time. --MarsmanRom (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)