Talk:Jane Daniel

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'm sorry, but with the exception of one sentence, everything you say above represents a "yes" answer to the question "Should we have information on Jane Daniel in Wikipedia?" but not a "yes" answer to "Should we have information on Jane Daniel in an article separate from that about the book?" Is Jane Fisher notable because without her the book would never have been written? That's still notability deriving from the book. Is Jane Fisher notable because her attempts to find grounds for challenging the lawsuit over the book led to the exposure of the book as false? That's still notability deriving from the book. The only sentence which makes an argument that Jane Daniel has any notability apart from l'affaire Misha is "Daniel had also published other books with some limited success in the U.S. before publishing the Misha Story" -- do we have articles on every one-person publishing company which publishes a few books (not more than a dozen) with "limited success"? No, we do not. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. For the reasons given above. The subject only became known to the public as a consequence of the publication of Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years. There is no other detail of her life, outside of that article, that needs to be part of the Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on this article - and sorry 65.78.13.238 (talk), but it's 'Daniel', not 'Fisher' :-) AndreaUKA (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)