Talk:Night (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Night (book) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is part of WikiProject Jewish history. An attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
Portal:Literature
 Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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



[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. image:tongue.png
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/g/Talk%7ENight_%28book%29_7149.html"