Talk:Misha Defonseca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents

[edit] This article should be a redirect to the book

Might I suggest that this article be turned into a redirect to Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years until and unless enough sourced info about the author turns up to justify a separate biographical article? I honestly don't think she's notable, or going to be notable, for anything except this book and the furor over it. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hallo - i have added some biographical informations about Misha Defonseca. I d' ont agree with your idea to merge the bookstory with the person (or to create a redirect). yours Christophe.Neff (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)"

Then I think you should give an actual reason why we shouldn't do such a merge on Talk:Misha Defonseca. I've already given a reason why we should: she is not notable for anything else except this book, and the book, though it is not a truthful account of Defonseca's life, is entirely entangled with that life. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You make a very good point, but I don't think a merge is necessary; Defonseca, who was not too notable outside of Europe a week ago, is now notable worldwide because of the scandal surrounding the book. I think that is enough to fulfill notability guidelines to warrant an article for the individual rather than simply merging the info. I say we should give it a day or so, see what other information will become available (since the news just broke, this is all a little too premature), and then we can consider merging or no. María (habla conmigo) 17:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Daniel

for continuing the discussion : Jane Daniel would merit a biographical article in wikipedia, because it was her tenacity who in fact delivered the true story ! Christophe.Neff (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. If a person is only notable for one particular incident, there is no reason for there to be a separate article for both the incident and the person. It is not just unnecessary, it is actively bad, because instead of concentrating on telling the one story, once, well, in one place, the true story will be split up between all the different articles. This is happening already: someone added (unsourced) interpretation of the novel, not to the article on the novel, but to this article about the author. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
redirecting or merging is not a good idea, - as we have seen it in this case - real life and fiction are two things, two very different things, - even if Misha Defonseca has merged fiction and real life in her imagination. But imagination has obviously nothing to do with reality ! Christophe.Neff (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Christophe here. I think the author's article should stay as it is. Christophe has added some information which should bear any challenge. I'd be willing to bet that as the story continues, there will be more information about the person as well as the book. Yngvarr (c) 16:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Both Monique de Wael's real life, and the imaginary life she claimed to have led and led others to believe that she had led, are both part of one complete story. We have less chance of telling a coherent account of those two lives -- the real and the imaginary, and how they relate, and how they differ -- if we try to tell it not in one article, but split up among two, or three, or four. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Your argument certainly has merits worth considering. If I were to suggest anything, it would be to bring this to WP:BLP/N and see what a wider discussion brings. That seems to be the most appropriate venue at the moment. Yngvarr (c) 17:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] french talk page concerning Misha Defonseca

under http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Misha_Defonseca I have left a message on the french talk page. Its in french, but i think its worth to be read (perhaps i will translate it later). I think in writeing a biography article one should try to be fair to Misha Defonseca and her parents, - parents which after all died in Nazi Concentration camps ! Christophe Neff (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing what the French version says, but this article already states that Defonseca's parents "were resistance fighters arrested and executed by the Germans." What more is there to say? María (habla conmigo) 21:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, Le Soir has reported that the allegations of Robert de Wael informing on the rest of the Belgian resistance may have been correct. Unfortunately, even with all the automated translation services and my own command of French, I can't translate it into anything I'd put weight on, and even Jane Daniel acknowledges that the truthfulness/fairness of that article is being challenged. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert de Wael

On 17 March 2008, 68.1.114.62 (talk · contribs) changed the sentence "Her parents were resistance fighters arrested and executed by the Germans." to "Her father was a traitor to the Belgian resistance and a Gestapo collaborator." and Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) changed it back.

The problem with 68.1.114.62's changes is that they provided no citations to document their statements about Robert de Wael, Monique de Wael's father. The problem with Yllosubmarine's changes is that there is indeed a very substantial possibility that de Wael was a traitor; his name was in fact chiselled off a monument commemorating the Belgian Resistance because he had been concluded to be a traitor. It's substantially misleading to simply call her parents "resistance fighters" with no qualification when the possibility exists that Robert de Wael did more to harm the Resistance than to assist it.

My problem is that I know where discussion of Robert de Wael's alleged treason to the Resistance is to be found, but my French is not good enough to translate it from scratch, or even to fill in the gaps of what the free automated translation services on the Web are clearly getting wrong. So: we need someone who does speak French fluently to examine these articles: [1] , [2] and report what we can validly report about the issue of Robert de Wael's collaboration. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted the edit is because it was indeed uncited and it violated WP:NPOV in that it used terminology that is in no way neutral. We could perhaps phrase it to be "suspected to be a traitor" or something similar if it can be properly cited, but by simply changing to prose to state that Deonseca's father was indeed a traitor is POV. María (habla conmigo) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My position is that it is equally POV to omit any mention of the possibility that Robert de Wael was a traitor when the possibility looms so large. I have already said that my French is not good enough to completely fill in the gaps left by automated translators. But from the second article I linked above the automated translator produces this: "August 8 1943, on the eve of his transfer towards the Strafgefangenenlager (camp for prisoners) d’Esterwegen that depends on the camp of Concentration of Neuengamme, it writes a card to its close ones. It says for them: "Yes, [I have] already collaborated with their police to prove my will to repurchase me". We don't even have to go to any foreign-language articles to know that Monique was called "the traitor's daughter" because Robert de Wael was regarded as a traitor, so to remove all references to the possibility is no more NPOV than stating outright that it was so. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)