Talk:Nacht und Nebel

Copyright issue
Parts of this article merged from Nacht und nebel are:
 * Reprinted with Permission From: shoaheducation.com © 2002 Elizabeth Kirkley Best PhD, Shoah Education (Web) Project all rights reserved . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silsor (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 October 2004

silsor 08:19, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) The 08:19 sig on this line is authenticated by the edit history, and was summarized "sign my earlier comment".


 * See Talk:Nacht und nebel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 April 2005
 * The following subsection contains the relevant material from that talk page. --Jerzy•t 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit history of that article appears under a Redirect, and runs from prose at 04:00, 29 September 2004, by, thru cycles of copyvio-tag or prose revisions, to Silsor's 19:58, 10 October 2004 reversion to prose (and two later variations as a Redirect). --Jerzy•t 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Night and Fog Copyright Infringement
I am the author of the short article on Night and Fog (Nacht und Nebel) which appears on my site at shoaheducation.com/fog.html. I am the one who put a copy of the article on wikipedia, as a reprint, and thereby gave you copyright permission to use the material. Whoever complained is someone without knowledge of the material or copyright, and may be among those who have given difficulty over my site for several years for either personal or ideological reasons. In any event, you may check and see that I am the author andowner by going to the page above, or writing at ekbest@charter.net or shoah@charter.net. If you have a name who filed the complaint I would like to know, because they, and not wikipedia are committing the violation: it is against Copyright law also to interfere with an author's decisions regarding his or her own work or publication thereof: (Federal Copyright Act, 1976). In any event, Wikipedia in no way violated the Act, nor did I in reprinting my own material.

We recenty moved and had a foul up with our Charter service, which was supposed to keep the same account and did but then changed: a person named 'Brandt' also gave our current address to them, so it could have beensomeone trying to pull a switch. We have had trouble on our site with hackings and wrongful entries as well and even modifying of files: when we can trace it we do. Thanks for looking in to this. You did have full permission to reprint the file.

Cordially, Elizabeth Kirkley Best PhD ekbest@charter.net shoah@charter.net shoaheducation.com

The emails are the ones listed on the site.
 * The above unsigned contrib was placed at Talk:Nacht und nebel 20:03, 10 October 2004 by User:Silsor, with the summary
 * "copied from Request for immediate removal of copyright violation"
 * Edit-history data noted by Jerzy•t 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC) (with typo correction 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), and copied to Talk:Nacht und Nebel 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC).


 * The text copied to Talk:Nacht und nebel#Night and Fog Copyright Infringement by Silsor, and thence to Talk:Nacht und Nebel#Night and Fog Copyright Infringement by Jerzy, appears, at a glance, to have originated at WP with the edit of 16:52, 10 October 2004 by on the page Request for immediate removal of copyright violation (whose old versions have since been covered by a Redirect). --Jerzy•t 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Silsor replied at the "Immediate removal" page:
 * Thank you very much for explaining this. I have restored your article, removed its listing from Copyright problems and copied your explanation to Talk:Nacht und nebel. silsor 20:05, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC) The suspected copyright violation was no doubt listed in good faith, since there was no way of telling who had copied the article from your site into Wikipedia. Usually these are acts of copyright infringement. silsor 20:07, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Noted by Jerzy•t 04:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC).


 * I have no idea whether this means the copyright issues are resolved, since GFDL goes unmentioned and the use of "author" does not clarify whether author and WP contributor were one person. It may be worth checking sigs at the copyvio page and in the history of the article. --Jerzy•t 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question still remaining in my mind is whether the procedures for confirming common identity between the contributor and the site owner were satisfied, in light of
 * the stated change of hands of the "Charter account" and
 * the IP's apparent lack of grasp of (and presumed inattention to) the GFDL provisions, as implied by the ineffective copyright boilerplate.
 * --Jerzy•t 04:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"This great evil"
Lines like "cruelly and unjustly" and the above heading don't really belong here.... While it's obvious that this policy was bad news, our duty is to recount, not to preach; let us assume our viewers have the strength of mind to decide what was "evil" on their own, without us telling them. If you feel that the modern German (and elsewhere contemporaneous) evaluation of the deeds described isn't obvious, you can summarize it in a new section of the article. Vivacissamamente 01:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
This artcle, while good, seems like it could use some rephrasing and cleanup. I'm not posting it on cleanup because that's too big already, but if you happen by here, here are some suggestions on improvements.


 * "The Geneva Convention was not of the Third Reich," - rephrase
 * "which resulted in the disappearance of many political activists." - passive voice; unless we don't know any more than this, it would be good to state what happened
 * "or the far larger group" -rephrase
 * Capitialization issues...

JesseW 06:49, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Too bad you didn't post it there. The article is chaotic and does not give a clear picture what it actually was. In particlur, it puts political activits and Soviet POW into one basket, which is totally incorrect. Also, it is full of speculations. Huge cleanup us due. Mikkalai 00:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The Third Reich was very much party to the Geneva Conventions, to state otherwise is flatout wrong. The Soviet Union btw was not, and this fact was used as legal justification for the very different treatment of western and soviet POWs by Germany, despite the declared willingness by the SU to adhere to the spirit of the conventions. 85.178.114.48 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Germany certainly was a signatory to the Geneva Convention of 1929, even ratifying the Convention in 1934 - during the years of the Hitler leadership. All during the war, Wehrmacht soldiers received a paybook which stated the relevant paragraphs of the Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of Prisoners of War. The rationale used by the Nazis to justify the actions on the Eastern Front was that the Geneva Convention did not apply to Soviet soldiers because the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention. But the USSR's status does not give the Germans an excuse to avoid their own obligations. I have not edited the particular paragraph because I believe that it needs a substantial rewrite, as to take out the incorrect portions of the paragraph would leave this para as a skeleton. Perhaps someone can assess what the paragraph is saying, and then rewrite it? DermottBanana (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)DermottBanana

The expression "Nacht und Nebel"
The film Night and Fog takes its French, and translated English, titles from the German term. The following has been removed from that the film's article:
 * There is some irony in the term, as "bei Nacht und Nebel davon gehen" is a colloquial German expression roughly meaning "escape under cover of darkness". Hitler most likely borrowed it from Wagner's Das Rheingold (1869),  an opera that he revered and in which a character becomes invisible using a magic helmet and uttering the spell "Nacht und Nebel, niemand gleich".

The reasoning behind the removal amounts to I don't have time right now to summarize just below the discussion at Talk:Night and Fog (film) of the removed passage, and add some of my afterthots since. --Jerzy•t 00:44 &20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) questioning the two assertions immediately before the two (here simulated) fact tags, and
 * 2) the ambiguity about whether the Rheingold connection is a fact about Nazi etymology, or a belief of the filmmakers, or for that matter OR by a WP editor, and their own a belief of a WP editor based on it.
 * There are two sentences; each has several clauses that can be discussed separately and in relation to each other (formatting altered by me:
 * ("There is some irony in the term, as ...") Unencyclopedically vague & PoV as it stands. Irony properly involves intent, which is hard to infer without the ironist at some point declaring that intent. Irony in loose senses ("Just the irony of the universe". "Ah, yes, that!" -- Shaw, Poison, Passion, and Petrifaction) for enc'ic purposes would require declaration of the looseness, and clarification of who testifies to the cognitive tension being inherant in the situation, and documentation that their judgement about that is widely accepted.
 * (" ... bei Nacht und Nebel davon gehen is a colloquial German expression ...")
 * When i found it, the expression was nonsense, and i corrected the original contributor's commission or copying of a typo that i inferred. That need doesn't suggest verifiability.
 * One of our mutual colleages asserted that that specific expression is not an established one, but that the 3 words that the 6 words were offered to explain is well established; i find that persuasive.
 * ("... roughly meaning escape under cover of darkness.") Irrelevant in light of previous point.
 * (" Hitler most likely borrowed it from Wagner's Das Rheingold (1869)" ...) Requires verification of several facts:
 * That Hitler ever used, let alone originated the slang or codeword.
 * That it comes from Wagner rather than the resemblance being a coincidence.
 * Or at least who inferred the likelihood and put significance on it, why, and citations that the inference is widely accepted; also, whether, once verified, it would belong with the film's article or the article on the program depends on whether mainstream historians or the filmmakers put the idea forward in a notable way. (On its face, the wording suggests it is well established independent of the film, which would suggest not putting it where it was. But the contributor could easily be parroting as fact the PoV heard in the film, which means that, restated and verified, it could belong only there.)
 * ("... an opera that he revered ...") He revered most or all of Wagner, so singling out a single work becomes harder to justify than if he hated the rest.
 * ("... and in which a character becomes invisible using a magic helmet and uttering the spell Nacht und Nebel, niemand gleich.") That's my wording, and i offered cites for most of it, but that was just to justify throwing out the muddy version i found; i think it's probably irrelevant, and advocate it only as better or less bad than what it replaced. I discussed the difficulties of translating it into English, bcz of which i offered no translations except on the the film's talk page.
 * --Jerzy•t 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The German article states that there are no references to the term "Nacht und Nebel" in the Nazi documents - it's a post-war invention. There are references to "NN" however which could refer to the traditional abbreviation NN "nomen nominandum" = not named. Guidod (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable prisoners
I doubt if all people in this list were Nacht-und-Nebel prisoners. For instance in the bios of Mary Lindell and Andrée de Jongh no mention is made of this policy. Who knows more? Kattiel (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Page Title
I altered the page title but this was reversed by The Bounder. Before going into an edit war I welcome any argument brought forward to keeping this page title. My reasons for changing the title and moving the page were: Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streifenleopard (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The title simply does not refer to a directive by Hitler but to a German saying. I have explained this in the newly amended name-section.
 * So, it is also a wrong account of events. Hitler did not issue night and fog on 7 December 1941 but the night-and-fog-directive.
 * 1) The use of the term "night-and-fog-directive" is in line with the use of equivalent terms, e.g. we use the term "Operation Barbarossa" but not "Barbarossa" and we use the term "Posen speeches" but not "Posen".
 * 2) The use of the term "night-and-fog-directive" will make it easier to distinguish between the directive and the films.
 * 3) The article itself uses almost always expressions like "night-and-fog-directive", "night-and-fog-decree", "night-and-fog-prisoners" or "night-and-fog-facilities", the few instances where it is not using such terms read strange. So, the new title will only reflect the content of the article.


 * The term 'Nacht und Nebel' is the most common use of the term and so we go with that, per WP:COMMONNAME. The number of hits in Google books (115,000 for Nacht und Nebel; 1,710 for Nacht-und-Nebel-Erlass is a quick guide on this). Numerous other reliable sources and encyclopaedias also use the shortened term (,, , etc). The article deals not just with the directive, but also covers impact, results, etc - a reflection of the use of the term, rather than a very narrow definition. I don't see the use of the terms "night-and-fog-decree", "night-and-fog-prisoners" in this context to be at all "strange": they are a reflection of the subject matter. - The Bounder (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Language
Looking through, this is a bit of a mish mash of different language variants - US program vies with UK labour and UK date format. This should be consistent throughout. I'll leave it up to those who work on the article to make the choice. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nacht und Nebel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722001023/http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/35-1-finucane-enforced-disappearance.pdf to http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/35-1-finucane-enforced-disappearance.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal
Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)