Talk:Night (memoir)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cover

Hi George, re: this edit, I'm minded to restore the Bantam cover, in part because it's based on the original French one, and in part because the page numbers refer to that edition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole body article doesn't mention Bantam edition. References do not count; neither does infobox. I had to do it because we tend to do first editions of every novel or book. I tried to find La Nuit or 1954 Argentine edition without luck. Also, the article mentions the US publication in 1960, implying the first US edition. I wanted to use the first UK edition, but I don't know. Doctor Zhivago (novel) uses the Russian-language Italian edition; why can't this article? --George Ho (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The first UK edition wouldn't be appropriate, because it was first published in English in the United States. I chose the Bantam cover because I couldn't find the original French (which was the first version of this text – the Yiddish text was different), and the Bantam cover is based on it. Also, we use the Bantam edition as a reference, so it made sense from that perspective too. It's the most popular (as in widely sold) version, so far as I know. And finally it's a nicer cover than the first English edition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A "mere" image may be most familiar, but "The first 18 months saw 1,046 copies sell at $3 each[.]" Well, the book wasn't popular when it first came out, but the first English edition had more historical value than the popular cover art. As the caption says, the 1982 edition uses the 1960 translation also. We could use two covers, but there's no room for additional cover art, unless one of images fails WP:NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If the above doesn't convince you, what about The Eye (novel)? It currently has the first US edition. --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm a little unclear about the facts here. If George's image is the first English language edition then it should be used. Which editions are the biggest sellers doesn't really enter into it. If it's not the first English language edition, then there's really no good reason to change the existing image that I can see. The arguments for change all seem to come down to WP:OSE and as such the status quo should be maintained. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To Mark Marathon: the book was published first in Yiddish; then it was translated to French and then to English. Here's the first US English edition. --George Ho (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

George, this is a featured article, and it was promoted with this image, so do not keep removing it. (Removing it has the effect of orphaning it, which means it will be deleted). We do not have to use the first English edition, and I'm anyway not sure now that Hill & Wang was the first one, as the translation was done by the UK publisher. I'm currently trying to find more sources on that point. But in any event, my preference is to use the one closest to the original French edition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not use this UK edition then? George Ho (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The FA criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. That's what we stick to. There's no need to use either of the first English editions; you don't know which was first; and lots of booksellers will claim something is a first-edition cover, but when you look closely you find it isn't. I have chosen one that is closest to the original 1958 French cover, and I've based the references on it for consistency. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2014

Please change the picture, as it is a completely different book than the one this article is representing. Attached is a link to an accurate image of the book: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/NightWiesel.jpg 216.67.41.124 (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The link you've given is the exact same as what's in the article now. Stickee (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2015

The image is not of "Night" but some book named "The Oath" 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:6AF8 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you specify which image you are referring to please. Also wether you have one to replasce it or feel it should simply be removed. Amortias (T)(C) 21:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: the only image on this article of a book is the infobox image, and that is clearly of "Night" Cannolis (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Moshe or Moishe?

In the article, I see that the section about the character is named Moshe, however, in the book, he is named Moishe. ... Jeff 19:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I've added an FAQ at the top of this page to explain it. I've also removed the link in your post. Thank you for the information, but it's best not to link to books under copyright. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Jeff 01:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffluo1011 (talk • contribs)

Recent edits

Solntsa90, the material you're adding is either contentious or is already in the article. One of the sources you linked to includes material that apparently originated with Holocaust deniers (the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust). You also reverted the clean-up I did today. I'm therefore going to restore that material and remove the recent addition. As this is a featured article, can I ask you please to gain consensus before making these changes? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What? No it's not. I posted a link to a John Hopkins University research paper and CounterPunch. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, that is simply not true that I linked to CODH or whatever, rather, they mainstream people who questioned the personal motives of Elie Wiesel. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You also restored the old formatting and image positions. Regardless of anything else, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.

Re: Counterpunch, it isn't an appropriate source for this. Criticism should be based on academic sources. But there is also material in that article (the Critique of Pure Reason point) that apparently originated with the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, and which has been addressed. The Critique of Practical Reason has been translated into Yiddish, so Weisel got one word wrong. There are other mistakes in that article too.

The point you want to make – that the Yiddish is different from the French and English, and that commentators see Night as literature rather than as a purely factual account – is already in the article. I don't mind using the Astro article if it says something new, but based on the small part of it that I can see, it doesn't. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the CounterPunch article not appropriate? Alexander Cockburn was a mainstream journalist who wrote a column for many different publications, I don't see why his opinion wouldn't be valid if others who are less notable fawn praise. And I don't see anything addressing the possibility of fraudulence, which is what is discussed in both the Astro article and the Cockburn piece, not anything to do with Holocaust revisionism.

Regarding the claims of linking to Holocaust Denial, that claim still isn't true.

Also, the infobox still has Night listed as first being published as Di Velt so that was my other contention; The Infobox gives the idea that La Nuit and Di Velt are the same books from a quick glance, which is potentially misleading: Wiesel himself admitted that the books are two separate works, with Di Velt aimed more towards Jews as an ahistorical account, and La Nuit intended as non-fictional testimony (though this hasn't stopped scholars from scrutinising the possibility authenticity of his claims; Different from claims of fraudulence, which are not minority voices but rather coming from mainstream sources of critique (of which one of the things CounterPunch does is literary review). Solntsa90 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources like FrontPage Magazine and CounterPunch aren't appropriate, especially for an FA. This article needs academic sources. As I said above, I'm happy to use the Astro article if it says something that isn't already in the article, but I can't see beyond the abstract. Can you post here his key points (the ones that aren't already dealt with)?

The article explains the publication process. He began with an 865-page manuscript, reduced to 245 pages for publication in Argentina. His editors in Paris translated and reduced it to 178 pages for publication in France, then other editors translated and reduced to 116 pages for publication in the US.

The narrative changed during that process, with a different emphasis for different audiences, with significant tightening and polish, so that, as our article says, they ended up with a work of literature rather than journalism or history. This means that some reviewers have called it a novel and others memoir. We cite Franklin: "She argues that the power of the narrative was achieved at the cost of literal truth, and that to insist that the work is purely factual is to ignore its literary sophistication." What is the point you feel the article should make beyond that? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Night is a pop-culture book. I strongly disagree on the inclusion of academic resources for something that even the writer admitted wasn't a memoir. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't CounterPunch appropriate? And who used FrontPage Magazine, and what does it have to do with CounterPunch, except for your apparent distaste for these two publications? Alexander Cockburn is more well-known than Ruth Franklin, and yet Franklin's lavishing praise is dominant throughout the 'reception' narrative while Cockburn is apparently removed for not being noteworthy enough(?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solntsa90 (talk • contribs)

Please don't add this again without consensus. That article isn't a reliable source for this point; it contains material that originated with a Holocaust denial website; and the material about the disagreement is already in the section, so the edit adds no information. The only thing the edit does is add an insulting quote. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Frietjes, I'm about to restore the infobox. The one you replaced it with lost the width, the colour, renamed the "English translators" parameter, lost the language parameter and renamed others. I wrote it as I did to fit the article. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yiddish title

The infobox says it was first published 1956: Un di Velt Hot Geshvign (Yiddish). That confuses me as Yiddish is typically written in Hebrew and "Un di Velt Hot Geshvign" looks like a transliteration to the Latin alphabet. I would have expected to see "און די װעלט האט געשװיגן" or "און די וועלט איז געבליבן שטיל". There's nothing in the article that explains why a Yiddish book was not published using the Hebrew alphabet.

The article also has "Turkov's Tzentral Varband fun Polishe Yidn in Argentina (Central Union of Polish Jews in Argentina) published the book in 1956 in Buenos Aires as the 245-page Un di velt hot geshvign ("And the World Remained Silent")." Mark Turkov was a publisher of Yiddish texts. Was his business name the transliterated "Tzentral Varband fun Polishe Yidn in Argentina" or did the sign on the front door have "סענטראַל פֿאַרבאַנד פון פּויליש יידן אין ארגענטינע"? --Marc Kupper|talk 20:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your questions, Marc, but if you can find out, you're welcome to add the information. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Frietjes, I'm going to restore the generic infobox shortly. The one you added has included a genre parameter which isn't there in edit mode that I can see, and has labelled the work an autobiographical novel. I can't see how to get rid of it. Wiesel has strongly denied that this is a novel, so this is an issue, which has unfortunately been in the lead for nearly a year. Also, it is missing some of the old parameters. It added that the book was in Yiddish, and it's not able to cope with the different translations. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the genre data comes from wikidata. if there is an error, you can remove it by adding a blank genre parameter or by editing the value on the wikidata page. you should be more specific concerning "missing some of the old parameters". Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Frietjes, thanks for fixing that. Can you show me where in Wikidata "autobiographical novel" came from and how it ended up in this infobox? Critics of Wiesel have called this work a "novel," in some cases to undermine it, so I was surprised to see that it had appeared in the infobox and that I couldn't remove it. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the inclusion of inaccurate information that cannot be easily removed is an ongoing issue with infoboxes at many articles about books. I pointed this out at WikiProject Books here, but I have not received a reply as yet. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Wikidata

For background, the issue is that Holocaust deniers have claimed this book isn't factual, so Wiesel is at pains to stress that it isn't a novel. It's not that only Holocaust deniers call it a novel (some scholars have too), but it's why it's a sensitive issue and why our lead calls it a "work."

I see now how "autobiographical novel" managed to get added to the infobox:

• In November 2013, VIAFbot (Maximilianklein) added "novel" as the genre to Night's page on Wikidata (where Night is known as Q592503). [1] His next edit said the genre was "imported from the Italian Wikipedia." [2]
• In May 2015 Frietjes removed the custom-made infobox from this article (which had no genre parameter) and added {{infobox book}}. [3] (Note: Frietjes did not add a "genre" parameter, but when you scroll down to look at the revision Frietjes left, it says "genre=memoir." That is only because Andreasmperu made a change today to Wikidata.)
• On the same day I reverted to the custom-made infobox. [4]
• On 9 July 2015 Andreasmperu added "genre = autobiographical novel" to Night's page on Wikidata. [5]
• On 31 July 2015 Bgwhite reverted at this article to {{infobox book}}. [6]
• Because of the reverting, I took the article off my watchlist.
• In March 2016, Frietjes edited {{infobox book}} so that Wikidata supplies certain parameters to articles that use it, even when the editors of those articlea have decided not to add those parameters. [7] (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#"#property:" in Infobox Books for objections.)
• From then on {{infobox book}} added the "autobiographical novel" genre to this article. Because the change was made remotely, the edit bypassed watchlists.
• I didn't notice it until I looked at the article yesterday. When I tried to remove it, I couldn't because there was no genre parameter in the article. I pinged Frietjes, and she removed it by adding an empty parameter ("genre=") to the infobox.
• After I started this discussion and pinged him, Andreasmperu added "genre=memoir" to Wikidata as an alternative to novel. [8] (It's best not to call Night memoir either. Many sources argue that it defies categorization; see Night (book)#Reception.) Freitjes then removed "autobiographical novel" from Wikidata. [9]

This means that infoboxes on the English Wikipedia are being edited remotely, perhaps unsourced or based on text from another wiki. There is nothing here to alert us to the changes. And the text appears in read mode only, so if you do notice it, you can't remove it unless you know to add the empty parameter. Is there consensus for Wikidata text to be added like this? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC) [edited SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)] [10]

I've edited the sequence of events above because I've just noticed the edits Frietjes made in March to {{Infobox book}}. It means that someone can change the lead of an article off-site by (a) changing the infobox template so that it fetches text from Wikidata, then (b) adding that text to Wikidata. Frietjes I think you ought to revert yourself and gain consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, watchlist changes have a checkbox to hide wikidata changes in your watchlist. by default that box may be checked, so if you uncheck it, you will see wikidata changes. I removed the claim from the wikidata page since the cited source was that it was simply imported from the Italian WP. the source for the secondary genre = memoir claim is an actual source. Frietjes (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Frietjes, no one should have to get involved with Wikidata to keep an eye on changes here. As for "memoir," that's based on one non-academic source. How to categorize Night is contentious; prioritizing the first source someone finds is an NPOV violation. But the point is that these changes shouldn't be made remotely. You can see from this sequence of events how it's going to cause mistakes to creep into articles, because the people who wrote the articles won't notice that the changes have been made. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sure Swpb can tell you more about the migration of book metadata to wikidata, and consensus for using it in the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Frietjes, it was this change of yours that made it possible. Is there consensus for that kind of change to infoboxes, and if there is, can you link to the discussion? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor SlimVirgin: Since I've been pinged, I'll let you know what I know. Without weighing in on Night, I can tell you that we are very definitely moving toward more importation of infobox parameters from Wikidata. That is one of the primary motivating factors for Wikidata; to centralize statements and sourcing in a language-independent database that all Wikimedia projects can draw from. You can fight that change if you want, but I can tell you it will be a quixotic fight; that consensus ship has sailed (discussion here). That was in 2013, and much has been done since then. There are, at present, 82 templates on en using wikidata in some form. If you're concerned about facts changing on you, then put the relevant Wikidata items on your watchlist. You don't need to set up a new account to watch and edit there, and you can choose to have your Wikidata watchlist changes displayed in your Wikipedia watchlist, so the burden is really not that great. —swpb^T 12:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Swpb. Only c. 28 people said yes to option 4 (or 3 or 4) in that RfC. We would need more than that for such a significant change. As you can see on WikiProject Books talk, several people are complaining about it. No editor should have to watch changes on Wikidata too. Editors are already leaving, taking pages off their watchlists, or not reacting to changes when they see them. To suppose that a new wave of free labour will emerge to deal with Wikidata too, to the point where errors like this are spotted quickly, seems unlikely as things stand. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor SlimVirgin: Like I said, fight it if you want. I think the consensus there was pretty solid, but I'm not the one you have to convince otherwise. —swpb^T 13:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Break

What is worrying is that the Wikidata edits seem to apply retroactively. When you look at old versions, the Wikidata text is present in read mode, even though it was added later. You have to go into edit mode to see that it was not in the article at the time. This seems worrying in terms of preserving history (pinging Denny).

Looking again at how it happened:

On 10 November 2013 a bot (VIAFbot, run by Maximilianklein) added genre="autobiographical novel" to Wikidata, [11] "imported from the Italian Wikipedia." [12]

At that time (I'm linking to the source code just in case), and still, the Italian Wikipedia referred to Night as a novel. But why did the bot add text to Wikidata from the Italian version? In its current form, and with its current title, it was first published in France, then in the United States. The French infobox said at the time: "genre=Autobiographie, Shoah." [13] The English infobox said "genre=Autobiography, memoir, novel." [14] (Later the English infobox had no genre parameter, because I felt it was better to leave it out, given that it's contentious.)

So the first question (for Maximilianklein) is why the bot imported text from the Italian Wikipedia, which seems to view Night as fiction, when it could have chosen the French or English. Second question (for anyone): how can we make sure Wikidata text doesn't appear in old version of infoboxes, so that the history of the article is preserved without having to read the source code? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The history-un-preserving thing is not from Wikidata, but a MediaWiki feature in general, unfortunately. It is true for templates and Commons images as well :( It would be great (but certainly not easy) to fix that. There's been quite a bit of research on that, I'd just point to a deliverable I was involved in: Render D1.1.2. I hope that's helpful as background. --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Denny. It's a concern that articles (including featured articles) can now have mistakes added remotely, and nothing appears on our watchlists unless we choose to watchlist another project. There are obvious BLP issues. And trying to remove the mistake, or even find out when it was added, is tricky because of the template history problem.

Maximilianklein, can you say why your bot on Wikidata added the genre from the Italian Wikipedia, and not from here or the French WP? I'd like to know more about how that works.

It seems that these changes to infoboxes happened on the basis of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, which was closed early, and in which just 28 people formed the consensus (option 4). The RfC was added to WP:CENT, but the notification didn't mention infoboxes. Several people who usually discuss infoboxes didn't comment. So I'm wondering how many editors know that this is happening. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I'm sorry that my bot edit caused so much confusion, and particularly one that would fuel Holocaust denial. Certainly not my intention. As you see the bot edit was done almost 3 years ago, and I don't have a clear recollection about why it ended up that way. I'm looking at my old code, and it seems that my intention was too add a plurality sources to claims if they did not exist. My comment in my code says

        
'''there are three states 
noMatchingClaim, so we add our claim
matchingClaimUnsourced, so we add our source
matchingClaimSourced, claim was already present and had the same source, do nothing''' 

Very unfortunately I missed about what to if we have the same claim with a conflicting source. So I think what happenend is that the Italian data must have been added first and then the bot must have thought seen the conflicting targets of the genre claim but there is a bug at line 430, which is there is no "else" clause about what to do in this case.

I wanted to use Wikidata's ideology of plurality and add all the claims and all their sources - but I wrote an uncaught bug. Sorry is all I can say. Maximilianklein (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Max, thank you, and no need to apologize. I'm just trying to figure out how the bot makes its choices. I know that these issues can creep in easily. Best, SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

SV, that's also true for Commons - one can go and change an image in Commons, and you wouldn't notice it on English Wikipedia. In Wikidata we at least integrated the watchlists, and you can see changes from Wikidata from within enwp. But I'd say that's not a new issue. --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Denny, yes, that's true, but for that to happen (without an edit to the article) someone would have to override a file name on Commons, a file name already in the article, and that would probably be spotted on Commons. Otherwise, to change an image in an article, you have to edit the article. But with Wikidata, a normal-looking edit – not a bad edit equivalent to overriding a file name – suffices to introduce an error into the leads of articles on Wikipedia, including featured articles, which have a reputation for accuracy. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC

In case anyone here is interested, there's an RfC on Wikidata and infoboxes directly related to this issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)