Talk:Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years

Unreferenced text on interpretation of the book

84.74.59.92 just added the following text to the article Misha Defonseca. I moved it here because a) it's about the novel, not the author, and b) it's not sourced, as literary interpretation should be. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Text by 84.74.59.92

Interpretation of the wolves novel

Psychologically the autobiographic novel "Surviving with Wolves" can be interpreted as the life under wolves, which are represententing the NS regime 1940-1945, and there was no other possibility for the author in her childhood than to trust the "wolves", and she survived.

The section "The true Monique de Wael"

The information in this section belongs in the biographical article, Misha Defonseca; it's not about the book but about the author. If the section remains at all (I can see good arguments both ways, though I think the arguments are stronger for complete removal), it should be a brief summary. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As you will note over there, my own recommendation is that the two articles be combined into one, because Misha Defonseca has done absolutely nothing which is notable which isn't connected to this book. The true story of her life should be told here so that it can be contrasted with the false story of her life which makes up the book. Even if we must have a separate biographical article about Misha Defonseca, and I don't think we actually do have any such need, the idea that we should be cutting out information important to this article in order to place it over there in that unneeded second article is frankly preposterous. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is still an ordinary book

The editors are mainly concerned about this book as a hoax and do not pay enough attention to its merits or to talk about it as a phenomenon. There are some basic data lacking. I would like to see an ISBN number and a cover if it is possible (i.e. an infobox). Meursault2004 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ISBN number. Meursault2004 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Why oh why oh why oh why oh why oh WHY do people think that every single person involved in any way with a notable thing or event deserves their own article? It's not the case! It's very, very doubtful that even Misha Defonseca deserves an article separate from Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years because there is nothing that makes Defonseca notable that isn't in some way connected with the book. The same is true of Jane Daniel; she has done nothing that makes her notable except to publish this book and get entangled in the subsequent aftermath. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Misha Defonseca I totally disagree with 65.78.13.238 : intellectually with have to make a clear difference between the person and his work: the artist and his work are two different things, - the writer and his work, the publisher and his work, the scientist and his work etc – even if “work” and person have a close relationship, and even if for some persons work and person seem to merge to one close thing. For example, for many Europeans George W. Bush and the U.S. political class, for some the U.S. Politics, merge to one thing. Fortunately not to all Europeans think so, and fortunately Wikipedia makes the difference. If User: 65.78.13.238 wants to make an article, where he could merge all informations related to the Misha hoax – why not create a new article where all the puzzle converge to one. We could name the new article “the Misha – Surviving with the Wolves Hoax” – in analogy to the French film – because it was the film (with more than 500.000 spectators in France which launched the discussion in France and Belgium). Coming back to Jane Daniel: if we read Henryk Broder attentively – we can discover the importance of Jane Daniel for the whole story “"Das Buch war meine Idee", sagt Jane Daniel mit dem Stolz einer Entdeckerin, die bei "Rudis Reste Rampe" ein echtes Fabergé-Ei gefunden hat.“ (= The book was my idea , said Jane Daniel with the pride of the discoverer, who has found a Fabergé egg on the flee market (I have translated “Rudis Reste Rampe” with flee market))[source = (http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/dokument.html?id=9133130&top=SPIEGEL&suchbegriff=misha+defonseca&quellen=%2BBX%2CWIKI%2C%2BSP%2C%2BMM%2CALME%2C%2BMEDIA&vl=0)]. This fact of the story is obviously unknown in the U.S.. Jane Daniel was the Midwifery for the story – and after having lost her trial –as she begins to write her well known Blog (http://www.bestsellerthebook.blogspot.com/)with an extraordinary tenacity, she becomes the Gravedigger of the whole story. An furthermore one should know, that Daniel had also published other books with some limited success in the U.S. before publishing the Misha Story, - we can learn that too, from the Broder Article ! So all in all, we need an detailed wikipedia article about Jane Daniel, and perhaps a whole traditional book for the extensive cover of the eclectic story of the Misha story. Unfortunately I have not the time to do this ! Christophe Neff (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 65 to some extent. Since the book is notable of itself (best selling, basis for a movie, etc), there's not much I can see that you can do with the book. And the book article is coming out nicely, I must say.

Then there's a few people involved... Gosh, it's getting like a juggernaut. I'm counting Jane Daniel, Marc Metdepenningen (which was created on 2008-03-04), and of course Misha Defonseca. Daniel is a publisher who was involved in a lawsuit, and is now working with Metdepenningen, all revolving around Defonseca. Since all three of these are notable only for the single event, I would consider some kind of merge/redirect to be suitable for the occasion. Something like The Misha Defonseca fraud or The Misha Defonseca hoax. Yngvarr (c) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I support merging Jane Daniel and Marc Metdepenningen into this article, as I see no evidence that they are notable people in their own right. I'm more neutral about Misha Defonseca. Terraxos (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Misha-memoir-cover.jpg

Image:Misha-memoir-cover.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) 14:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An alternative opinion, perhaps

I think this needs a bit more thought/consideration. This is all tied in with hoaxers Misha Defonseca, Herman Rosenblat, forensic genealogists Sharon Sergeant, Colleen Fitzpatrick, and many other 'notables', including Oprah Winfrey. Also, Jane Daniel was sued by two unknown authors for various breaches of contract. The two were awarded over $33 million in damages, plus all rights to a book that went on to become an international bestseller. And thirty-three million dollars is the same amount as that awarded to the families of the deceased in the wrongful death suit against O. J. Simpson for the killings of his wife and her friend. This is, I think, unprecedented in the publishing world. Let's not be too hasty, I say. AndreaUKA (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years. 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/20080302203827/http://www.lesoir.be/channels/cinema/exclusif-2008-02-28-580849.shtml to http://lesoir.be/channels/cinema/exclusif-2008-02-28-580849.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228004201/http://www.lesoir.be/channels/cinema/cinema-ses-parents-etaient-2008-02-23-579622.shtml to http://www.lesoir.be/channels/cinema/cinema-ses-parents-etaient-2008-02-23-579622.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228004201/http://www.lesoir.be/channels/cinema/cinema-ses-parents-etaient-2008-02-23-579622.shtml to http://www.lesoir.be/channels/cinema/cinema-ses-parents-etaient-2008-02-23-579622.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302203827/http://www.lesoir.be/channels/cinema/exclusif-2008-02-28-580849.shtml to http://lesoir.be/channels/cinema/exclusif-2008-02-28-580849.shtml

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Better choice of words

The open paragraph includes "was fraudulently published". I read above where the publisher was involved in two lawsuits but no mention of fraud on the publisher's part. This "Misha" character duped a lot of people that, as for as I can tell, includes Jane Daniel. The definition of fraud: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain". Lacking evidence to include Jane Daniel it would seem a better choice of words could be used. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)