Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Sexuality in the Diary

[1].
Claims that Anne Frank was LGBT are unsourced and blatant POV pushing. We have discussed this several times. See:

• Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5#Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020
• Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5#Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019
• Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 4#Inclusion into Category:LGBT Jews and List of LGBT Jews
• Talk:List of LGBT Jews#Anne Frank.

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_(PinkNews) (where you linked to here) offers a fair number of citations to suggest this merits coverage in some form. Bondegezou (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Copied list of sources offered: As a Queer Jew, Learning Anne Frank Was Bisexual Is a Game-changer (Haaretz), Anne Frank, My First Bisexual Hero (Arre), Newly discovered pages of Anne Frank’s diary reveal her uncle was gay (Gay Star News), Here’s something you never knew about Anne Frank that will blow your mind (Gay Star News), Omitted: Anne Frank Would “Go into Ecstasy” at the Sight of Female Nudes (AfterEllen), Re-reading Anne Frank’s diary as a queer Jewish person (Special Broadcasting Services), Imagine Anne Frank at 90 (Religion News Service) Bondegezou (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Bondegezou, almost none of these are RS', and almost all of the research done in the articles is speculation and OR. We are not people to put a label on who Anne Frank was, she wrote down her feelings, but stating she was this sexuality or that is wrong. There is simply NOT enough evidence that Anne Frank was LGBT and it is wrong to label her as such. Could she have been? Sure. Could she have not been? Equally as such, but we'll never know and its inappropriate to label her as such. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just bringing over some materials from another discussion as they seemed pertinent here. If any of the references are RS, then they warrant consideration.

I'm not saying that this article should be categorised into Category:LGBT Jews and List of LGBT Jews, nor that it should boldly state she was bisexual. However, equally, it seems not quite right to say claims are "unsourced and blatant POV pushing", as above. There is a body of material, that is drawing on the text. Is there some compromise that would be appropriate, based on WP:BALANCE, that acknowledges that body of material discussing these issues, without labeling Frank. Bondegezou (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure either Frank's article or the article on the book itself mention these in passing, that they were removed originally but added in a later version of the diary, I feel that is enough. I feel there doesnt need to be any other mention. QueerFilmNerd^talk 20:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - as far as I can tell, the pieces in Gay Star News, AfterEllen, and Religion News Service are all RS, which makes inclusion of this interpretation reasonable. I don't support the use of op-ed material in biographies (and this is a biography though not a BLP), but the existence of op-eds in Haaretz, Times of Israel, and sbs.com.au all support the inclusion of the material as DUE, so long as non-op-ed sources are the ones actually cited.

To be clear, I am supporting inclusion of the material; this is not a proposal to use any specific label for Frank's sexuality, which is a question demanding more nuance and discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, any non-activist sources? Given the subject, we need weighty academic sources. Guy (help!) 23:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Religion News Service is a pretty high-quality, non-activist source. And that is one of the reasons I mentioned the Israeli newspaper op-eds: they are mainstream rather than activist if one is to force such a distinction.

But anyway, I dispute the premise: our job as editors is to reflect the findings of recent, high-quality sources, not only the weighty (ancient) tomes. Since the publication of the Critical Edition and its scholarly apparatus, this has been a real issue in the literature, and as far as scholarship is concerned, it is discussed in the recent Palgrave Handbook of Holocaust Literature and Culture, not to mention that there is apparently a conceptualization of an "Anne Frank phase" of bisexuality in developmental psychology. So I really don't think this is TOOSOON any longer, especially given that we are to privilege recent over 20th century RS when we can. The argument that this issue belongs to "activists" seems to me to take far too much for granted in a field where the significance of lives lived in the past has to be open to redefinition in each generation. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, no it's not. We need academic sources for this. Guy (help!) 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is what Religion News had to say:

"Otto Frank picked up her diary, and he read it -- and he did something -- that word that we have heard so often recently.

"He redacted her diary.

"He edited out many passages: about Anne's conflicts with her mother, Edith; about her emerging sexuality, especially where she embraces her bisexual longings."[2]

Here is my problem with this. Multiple high-quality sources that say that it is perfectly normal for a teenage girl to have sexual feelings towards other girls. If that makes you bisexual, then well over 90% of the female population is bisexual.

There are a few people who claim that any sexual feelings toward the same sex -- no matter how young you are, no matter whether the feelings are lasting, and no matter whether you ever act on those feelings -- makes you gay or bisexual. Those people are mostly homophobes and religious wackjobs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I am not saying that we should refer to Frank as "bisexual" or "queer" in wikivoice. What I am saying is that given the attention this topic is now receiving, it is DUE to mention it in the article (beyond the current whitewashing, which says nothing of use to our readers). Exactly what should be said, based on the BALANCE of the best sources, is another, secondary question.

and JzG, you said we need academic sources on this, but didn't give a basis for that in policy. Of the current 127 citations in this article, by the most charitable definition no more than 29 of those could be termed "recent, scholarly sources" (published in the last 20 years), and even that is probably overbroad because there seem to be primary sources included in the 29, which shouldn't really count. So why are you holding this material to a higher standard than the rest of the article? Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, this is an article on a historical figure. Activist sources seeking to "claim" their own are not appropriate. Guy (help!) 07:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Read correctly, JvG, I don't think that's what any of the (non-OpEd) sources under discussion is doing. And you haven't given any answer to my question why discussion of this material - not "categorization" or "identification" of Frank as LGBT, which neither I nor most the sources I've referenced are doing - is to be held to a higher standard of sourcing than the rest of this article. I'll wait. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, what is written in Palgrave Handbook of Holocaust Literature and Culture? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The chapter in the Palgrave Handook of Holocaust Literature chapter is entitled "Anne Frank and Wartime Experimentation", by J Krongold. Since it is on Google Books, I suggest people read it for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC) - as discussed below, now that someone has read the source, which I did not have access to, it is not relevant. My apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the late citation. The classic indication of someone who started with a conclusion and went looking for sources to support it.

Given your history of confusing what a source actually says with your conclusions based upon your reading of the source, may we please have ab direct quote where Krongold says that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I do not believe that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual, and have not proposed that the article say that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual, why would I go looking for a quote that I don't believe exists. The point is that the scholarly chapter discusses the sexuality material from the Diary, giving it WEIGHT. And I first mentioned this source in my second post to this page, I don't think it counts as a "late citation". II just didn't take the time to track down its full details until now.

And given your history of confusing what authors and editors say with what you think they might possibly be saying, I am not going to participate in any straw hominid construction on your part, whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don’t have full access to that chapter (it’s missing four pages), unfortunately, but I can’t see a reference on the parts I can access. If you could give a page number or direct quote to support the claim, that would be useful. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I read pages 114-116; there's nothing about sexuality there. There are plenty of other sources which give weight to her writings about her sexual feelings. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes; my apologies re:Krongold; that's the last time I'll make a talk page mention of a source I haven't been able to read. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Anne Frank's sexuality, whatever it was, is not the reason for her notability. It played no significant part in her life story. It therefore does not belong in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, we are supposed to base that judgement on the recent, reliable sources, not an editor's personal sensibility. My $.02 would be that the fact that her sexuality was expunged from the original publication of the diaries and has come into the public conversation really only in the last ten years, is actually a salient part of her (postumous) story. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, "life story" in this context is a bit...well, misplaced, given the very limited space she had to write it. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The most that I believe this should even come to close being mentioned is a passing mention that the content about Anne's sexuality was part of the re-added entries for the unabridged version released in 1995, if anything at all. QueerFilmNerd^talk 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any mention Sources are doubtfully RS and/or have a WP:AGENDA which we should not be catering to. There is not even close to sufficient coverage in mainstream independent reliable secondary sources to justify any mention of her alleged sexuality. See also WP:UNDUE and WP:LGBT/Guidelines which states in part... A deceased person may be categorized and identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual if they had documented, noteworthy relationships with persons of the same sex or other sexes, such as Marlon Brando. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that your position, "Oppose any mention", is not supported by the guideline you cite, which is about "categorization and identification". I am not proposing categorization or identification, and neither do most of the sources cited above, which seem to me to have less of an AGENDA on the whole than the editors opposing inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The sources are not substantially establishing the sexuality and the age (15) is too young for a realistic establishment of sexuality. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the mentioned content is not necessary for a further understanding of Anne Frank, and is not necessary on the page. The sources linked above are arguably not RS. Addition unnecessary. If anything, a passing mention that the passages were removed in the original and then re-added in the 1995 (I believe) version, but even then, the current wording for the "unabridged version" is fine. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support mention: I agree with NewImpartial that a pretty big part of the fact that her father redacted certain passages is why those passages were redacted. I don't think we should describe her as definitively queer in Wikivoice, but I definitely think we should include a mention that there were several passages in her diary that described attraction to women, perhaps attributed to one of the many RSes we have for this claim. Loki (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As for academic sources, I found this source which mentions a student's assertion that Anne Frank might have been gay without explicitly approving of or denying it. It does seem to think it's at least possible though because it seems to regard a teacher dismissing the possibility out of hand as a bad thing. Loki (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Homosexual urges in a 15-year old girl are perfectly normal and do not establish homosexuality. How many times are we going to debate this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Let me be clear: I do not object to any mention of the nature of the material that Otto Frank redacted, as long as it is well-supported by reliable sources. I do object to using that as a reason to categorize Anne Frank as a lesbian without substantial additional information, which I can't imagine popping up at this ;ate date. The matetrail we have is just not sufficient to make that categorization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

To respond to the question How many times are we going to debate this?, we have had a discussion here (Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5#Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020) that ended preemptorily after inaccurate statements from Guy Macon that PinkNews was the only source discussing Frank's sexuality, another previous discussion here (Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5#Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019) where only OR/PRIMARY sourcing was offered, and two brief discussions on Category pages (Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 4#Inclusion into Category:LGBT Jews and List of LGBT Jews Talk:List of LGBT Jews#Anne Frank) that were again based on OR. Currently I for one am not advocating the inclusion of a category or of an identity label in wikivoice, and unless there's a discussion that wasn't linked above, I think the present instance would be the first discussion of this content question based on the actual RS. (Given the poor quality of many of the !votes, however - not yours, BMK - I have a feeling this won't be the last such discussion, particularly as the sources on this are likely to continue to improve; the Palgrave Handbook of Holocaust Literature and Culture, published this year, seems to be the first weighty tome to take up the issue, for example.) Newimpartial (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:UNDUE. CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the very good reasons as outlined above. If I'm honest, this discussion is making me feel rather uneasy; here we are, 75 years on, drawing interpretations on a child's sexuality based on nothing other than a close bond she shared with another female. Who the hell cares, in this day and age, what her sexuality was? And why the hell are we trying to sexualise a child by pigeon holing her as either gay or straight? Who are we to assume her sexuality? She may've identified as straight for all we know. I'm sure there are plenty of people, past and present, who've experimented with gay sex or who have been attracted to someone of the same gender, and who still identify as straight. Unless there are reliable sources to the contrary, let's leave her be and stop trying to focus on this rather irrelevant part of her life. Cassianto^Talk 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, per policy, we should be basing our content decisions on what the independent, reliable sources say and not on what our editors feel. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to WP:BLUDGEON every oppose !vote with essentially the same comment? You are not basing your decision on what the source says. You are taking a source that talks about about feelings that pretty much every normal 15 year old girl experiences and using WP:SYNTH to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source -- that Anne Frank was bisexual. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not done the thing you say I have done - please see my comment here. As far as BLUDGEON goes, I believe that while I have added more distinct comments on this discussion, that you have added more lines of text scattered through the various !votes (including directly repeating yourself at length). Is this a BLUDGEON contest? :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be included. It's creepy, Newimpartial, being this obsessed over a child's sexuality. Cassianto^Talk 15:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And now you have made a DUE argument, rather than an argument from your feelings I would be happy to discuss DUE, as long as we can be CIVIL about it.

But before you cast any further ASPERSIONS, please note that (1) if you had read the op-ed sources, you would understand that many contemporary Jewish people, in particular, find Frank's discussion of her sexuality empowering in coming to terms with their own sexuality, and (2) literally the whole reason I am here is that Guy Macon used his misreading of the PinkNews piece (cited in the earlier 2020 discussion) as a straw man reason to limit the reliability of PinkNews on the RSN, until this discussion was recently reopened. The temporary constraint on using PinkNews as a source had no valid justification and resulted from a brief, misleading and sloppy RSN discussion. As a result of the recent, more fulsome discussion, I have followed the links offered to correct this misperception at source: namely, that PinkNews was labeling Frank as "bisexual" - which they don't - and that PinkNews was the only source to discuss the implications of Frank's unexpurgated diary for queer experience - which it never was. So please leave your assumptions at the door, Cassianto. They don't become you. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What am I assuming, exactly? This'll be the fifth time we have discussed this child's sexuality and each time there was no consensus to identify her as LGBT. You cite Pink News as the source, a gay newspaper. Of course they're going to say that in their opinion, she was LGBT. They don't exactly discuss the shipping forecast, do they. I'll say it again: just because something exists, that doesn't make it a benefit to the article. You may also want to check "Pink News" here and here with regards to it being a reliable source. Cassianto^Talk 15:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

My reliable, non-LGBTQ source is [3] but, following best practice, I am seeking consensus on inclusion *first* rather than launching on any BOLD adventure. And there is no policy-compliant basis for excluding "gay newspapers" as reliable sources, so I'd suggest that you check your privilege on that issue.

And in terms of CIVIL, what you said earlier was It's creepy, Newimpartial, being this obsessed over a child's sexuality. If by now you recognize that that comment is inaccurate and cites inappropriate ASPERSIONS, then I suggest you strike it through. You are assuming that I am "obsessed over a child's sexuality", with no evidence or apparent self-awareness whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again you say "My reliable, non-LGBTQ source is religionnews.com" Again I tell you here is what Religion News had to say:

"Otto Frank picked up her diary, and he read it -- and he did something -- that word that we have heard so often recently.

"He redacted her diary.

"He edited out many passages: about Anne's conflicts with her mother, Edith; about her emerging sexuality, especially where she embraces her bisexual longings."[4]

Again I tell you that multiple high-quality academic sources that say that it is perfectly normal for a teenage girl to have sexual feelings towards other girls. If that's what makes you bisexual, then well over 90% of the female population is bisexual.

In my personal opinion this continual focusing in on the one small part of Anne Frank's Diary that touches on sexuality -- how many discussions have we had on this so far? -- really is creepy. If some Nazis had murdered me at the age of 15 you would have found some strange shit left in my diary. Like Anne Frank, I was young, confused, going through puberty, and exploring all sorts of odd ideas on topics that were, at the time, pretty much a mystery to me. But that was just a small part of that diary. Unlike Anne Frank, large portions of my diary at the age of 15 documented my obsession with anything that contained a 427 Hemi V8[5][6][7] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I was not for a minute suggesting that you were creepy, more so the need and persistence of this subject to be discussed on this talk page for the fifth time! The fact I'm using your name is not an indication that I am talking about you, Newimpartial, more that I am talking to you. It's called direct dialogue, get it? So as far as strikes are concerned, no, not applicable. Like it or not, I find a five-time repeated conversation about a dead child's sexual orientation, odd. My view, of course, would be entirely different if she was an iconic representative for the LGBT community, such as Turing or Wilde, who both suffered for their sexualities. Then absolutley, I would expect to see things being focused on their sexual orientations. But this? No. Cassianto^Talk 16:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

None of the previous discussions has more than a handful of participants, nor were any of the other RS cited besides PinkNews (which Guy Macon mischaracterized on this page, and other participants simply parroted without examining the sourcing for themselves).

What I am asking you to do, Cassianto, is to read the secondary sources (including the op-ed) for yourself before imposing your subjective judgement about the importance of one or another LGBT "icon". Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason why her sexuality has been persistently discussed is because it has been persistently censored -- by her father, by editors, by the public. And maybe she would be an iconic representative for the LGBTQ community if people were not creeped out by focussing on the reality of the sexuality of young girls. She certainly wasn't. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's "creepy" to be discussing a child's sexual orientation. She was 15 for heaven's sake! That is below the age of consent in nearly all countries, and certainly in all orientations. If you now tell me that it's not, and that it's perfectly normal to be discussing a child's sexual preference, I'm bowing out. This is too much, even for me, and I like a good debate. Cassianto^Talk 17:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not discussing underage pornography;[8] we're having one of thousands of discussions[9] about adolescent sexuality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as PinkNews is concerned, please see the ongoing RSN discussion here, which is what brought me here in the first place. The outcome of the previous discussions resulted from the groupthink of a small number of editors, based on Guy Macon's misreading of an article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC) RSN link added by Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I misread nothing, and I reject the assertion that when an author chooses to show images of Twitter tweets that the author has zero responsibility for the content of those tweets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you stated One example is enough. PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual.[10] As has been pointed out to you by others, this statement is false; per AGF, I assume that you misread (or misconstrued) the article which, like many contemporary journalistic sources, includes tweets as counterpoint to the content without assuming that they offer "established facts". Your reading is simply mistaken, and ignores both the headline and the text of the article in quite irresponsible fashion. (You also implied that PinkNews was the only reliable or independent source to bring attention to the question of Frank's sexuality and its suppression in the editing of the diaries; your implication has not been true for years and should be obviously untrue since this discussion went more mainstream in 2018). Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, I find your comments problematic in the vein of Bisexual erasure and Lesbian erasure. It sounds like you are minimizing her homosexual feelings when you characterize them as "nothing other than a close bond she shared with another female" and compare them to "experiment[ation]" by those who identify as straight. You're right that we don't know how she identifies, but the sexuality of a girl is not irrelevant to her life and it is not "creepy" to discuss it. Anne Frank had sexual agency and we will not censor her because that makes you uncomfortable. Speaking of the omitted original text, Miep Gies, who saved Frank's diary, said that "Anne's ideas were such treasures that leaving out one of them . . . would mean a great loss to the world."[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know how she identified then how do you know she'd identify as LGBT? She might not have. What then? Who are you to assume someone's sexual orientation? I know at least three people who've been in a gay relationships and who are now in a heterosexual marriage, and who have children. They identify as straight. Afford the poor girl a bit of dignity, based upon the fact she cannot speak for herself, and leave any interpretations at the door. Cassianto^Talk 17:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said anything about how she identifies. I said she had homosexual feelings, which by definition are what she described. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, that does not make someone gay. At 15, hormones are flying everywhere. I think it was Beyond My Ken who said that this was perfectly normal, and indeed it is. But this is not her coming out story. The fact someone has "homosexual feelings" at 15, that's it for life then, is it? Cassianto^Talk 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, this is getting tedious. You're not hearing me. I am arguing that we should include her own words (where she describes her homosexual feelings) without us characterizing them as "homosexual", "bisexual", or anything. No one is saying that having homosexual feelings makes someone homosexual. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, and how does that aide our understanding of Anne Frank, the Jewish diarist, exactly? Be honest, it doesn't, does it. This will not benefit the article at all - shock horror, a prepubescent teenager with hormones bouncing around everywhere, saying she quite fancies one of her female friends. What else will be putting down under "feelings"? The list is positively endless. If she had had a full-blown lesbian affair, certainly at that age, fine, but she didn't. Where do you draw the line in terms of mentioning the other things in her life that she thought about but didn't end up fulfilling? Cassianto^Talk 19:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, this text about sex was singled out for redaction in the original publication; RS give weight to this text by discussing the fact that it was redacted in the original publication; RS give weight to this text by discussing the censorship battles in schools, RS give weight to this text because it is about her best friend (who has written extensively about their relationship), RS give weight to this text because of its homoeroticism; RS give weight to this text because of its frank and relatable discussion of adolescent female sexuality. RS are interested in her sexuality for the same reason RS are interested in a little girl in the context of the Holocaust; this is the experience of an innocent human being in horrific circumstances. Her humanity is what draws us into the story; that includes her sexuality. Why are you so focused on excluding this particular text, out of all the text in the article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, no, her sexuality does not "draw us into the story", far from it. She was 15. Discussing her sexuality is hugely inappropriate. Cassianto^Talk 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, so your reason for opposing the text is because it is "hugely inappropriate". What Wikipedia policy are you basing this on? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, screw Wikipedia policy, this is about decency. It is grossly inappropriate to be speculating about a dead child's sexuality. Cassianto^Talk 08:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I am not proposing that we speculate about her sexuality.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are not proposing that we speculate about her sexuality, you are certainly doing a good imitation of it.

"There are plenty of other sources which give weight to her writings about her sexual feelings." -- Kolya Butternut 19:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"The reason why her sexuality has been persistently discussed is because it has been persistently censored -- by her father, by editors, by the public. And maybe she would be an iconic representative for the LGBTQ community if people were not creeped out by focussing on the reality of the sexuality of young girls. She certainly wasn't." -- Kolya Butternut 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Anne Frank had sexual agency and we will not censor her because that makes you uncomfortable." -- Kolya Butternut 16:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"I never said anything about how she identifies. I said she had homosexual feelings, which by definition are what she described." -- Kolya Butternut18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"RS give weight to this text because of its homoeroticism; RS give weight to this text because of its frank and relatable discussion of adolescent female sexuality. RS are interested in her sexuality..." Kolya Butternut 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Those do not appear to be the words of someone who is not proposing that we speculate about her sexuality. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Can you look past your projections and imagine another, simple interpretation? It's tiresome to explain myself when you haven't made the effort to interpret my words as I've said they're intended. AGF and such as? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess not. Ok then, so I have been saying that I am not proposing that we speculate about her sexuality (meaning sexual orientation) in the article. I'm fine with speculating about her sexuality and sexual orientation in the talk page if it advances the discussion without getting forumy. I am proposing that we include information about her sexuality (meaning sexual thoughts and behavior generally) in the article. And maybe she would become an LGBTQ icon if her sexual thoughts and behavior were discussed more (not that that is a goal). Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would she become an "LGBTQ icon", because she died in a concentration camp? She wasn't deported for reasons having anything to do with "sex" in any of its guises. The reason for mistreatment was Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I find this whole thread "problematic". I find it frankly offensive for you to assert that I am wanting to erase LGBT history by not wanting to discuss the sexual orientation of a dead child who is not here to identify for herself. Not only that, but how does this spurious claim by a non-reliable source that Anne Frank was gay - simply because she was attracted to another female - help us understand Anne Frank, the Jewish diarist? Cassianto^Talk 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you won't read the reliable sources that are offered to you[12] you won't find the answer. And none of the sources are saying that "Ann Frank was gay". But you can't find that out for yourself, because you refuse to read the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, ah, "Religious News", that well-known, centuries-old, reliable source that no one has ever heard of. Whilst I appreciate the list is not exhaustive, it's not even listed here for us to be able to judge if it's reliable. Get it listed as a RS and you may be in business, but only if others feel it's worth being mentioned. I don't. Cassianto^Talk 17:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not the way our sourcing policy works, but thanks for playing. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, I did not do what you are accusing me of doing. Please focus on your problematic statements rather than your personal discomfort at having them pointed out. I am arguing that Frank's own words about her own sexual feelings should be included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, do you not find it uncomfortable to be discussing (for the fifth time) the sexual orientation of a deceased child? If not, why not? Again, who cares whether she was straight, gay, bisexual, gender-queer, non-binary, questioning, or anything else (I don't know the full list, my apologies). She was a child. This topic should not even be up for discussion, unless it can be reliably proved that she identified as any of the above. And by "reliably proved", I mean a proper, reliable source. Not a religious newspaper that is owned by the same people who own Reddit. Cassianto^Talk 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, as I said, I am arguing that Frank's own words about her own sexual feelings should be included, and notice that in my !vote I said that we cannot characterize her sexuality. So, are you ok with including her own words about her sexual feelings? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, sorry, what are her words? Cassianto^Talk 18:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, if you haven't read the source you shouldn't be participating in this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I read them, but I wanted you to tell me again. And don't tell me where I can and can't participate. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of ownership, Cassianto, Religion News is not Reddit, and has editorial oversight. And the author of the piece, Jeffrey Salkin, is recognized as one of the most thoughtful Jewish writers and teachers of his generation and is therefore an "acknowledged expert in a relevant field" in the sense required by WP:RS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We really shouldn't base any assertions of sexuality on the wartime diary of a 15 year-old. Most people of that age have feelings which, in the fullness of time, don't come to anything. We wouldn't normally use this kind of thing to draw conclusions. To give a modern analogy, many teenage diaries will include expressions of undying love for some adult singer or other celebrity. Would we use this as justification for saying the teenager was sexually attracted to older people? No, of course we wouldn't. Was Anne Frank LGBT? She might have been but the sad truth is that no-one will ever know because the Nazis denied her the chance to find out, and that's what we should concentrate on. Neiltonks (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, per policy, we should be basing our content decisions on what the independent, reliable sources say and not on the original reasoning of our editors. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per many good reasons expounded above. Zero^talk 08:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both text about her best friend Jacqueline van Maarsen[13][14] and text about the redacted pages where Frank expressed attraction to van Maarsen.(Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds) We may also add that she wrote that she loved Peter Schiff,[15] and Peter van Daan did not live up to him. While we cannot characterize her sexuality, we should include information about these important relationships in her life. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as Neiltonks wrote above, we really shouldn't base any assertions of sexuality on the wartime diary of a 15 year-old. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Striking !vote because I voted with a better rationale below --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. We should use independent, reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

...which are lacking in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What is your rationale for excluding "Religious News" as an independent RS? The reason can't be that its analysis is based on "the diary of a 15 year old girl", because that is literally what most of this article (and the Notability of the article's subject) are based on. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to exclude Religious News on topics that RN actually talks about. I do want to exclude any attempt to start with that RN actually talks about (feelings that pretty much every normal 15 year old girl experiences) and use WP:SYNTH to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source -- that Anne Frank was bisexual. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

But I am not proposing to do that. I said, in my very first contribution on this Talk page, To be clear, I am supporting inclusion of the material; this is not a proposal to use any specific label for Frank's sexuality, which is a question demanding more nuance and discussion. I am seeking inclusion of the material, based on the reliable, independent sources. What language should be used is a secondary question, that depends on what the sources actually say as well as LABEL and NPOV policies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose not seeing any academic sources or a sources anyone would use for a BIO.--Moxy 🍁 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Moxy: As I pointed out above, the current(non-BLP) article currently has 127 citations, of which at most 29 are from what could be charitably termed "recent" scholarly sources (from the last 20 years). Why are you placing more stringent requirements in this case? Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Kolya Butternut—it is not a matter of "minimizing her homosexual feelings". It is a matter of not recognizing "her homosexual feelings". Sexual orientation is a common theme in 2020. Our present concern with sexual orientation should not cause us to reevaluate the past—unless there is good reason to do so. The support for any such assertion as is being contemplated should require substantial sourcing. Attraction for someone of one's gender need not be explained as a homosexual attraction. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Bus stop, we should be following reliable sources and not the feelings of editors in this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

...which you are failing to do. You start with a source that talks about feelings that pretty much every normal 15 year old girl experiences and use WP:SYNTH to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source -- that Anne Frank was bisexual. The source doesn't say that. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I am becoming quite challenged by your poor reading comprehension. I am not stating, or implying, that Ann Frank was bisexual. I am not suggesting that this article should say so either. And neither do the sources under discussion in this section make that claim. What they say - and what I say - is that Ann Frank's sexuality was discussed in the first draft of the diary, was removed by the time the diary was first published, was restored in later publications of the diary, and is of interest and relevance to later readers, particularly Queer Jewish ones. How you turn this into either myself or e.g. Religion News claiming that "Ann Frank was bisexual" is beyond my understanding and seems to be a problem lodged in your reading comprehension, to AGF. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Religion News" is a blog titled "Martini Judaism". It calls Anne Frank a "Jewish butterfly". Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't - take a look. And so what if it does. Are you hostile to metaphor? Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "hostile to metaphor". I'm opposed to the flimsy reasoning supporting an alternative sexual orientation. "Religion News Service Launches "Martini Judaism" Blog by Jeffrey K. Salkin" Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but Religion News isn't a blog, as you stated earlier. It has editorial oversight. And Jeffrey Salkin is reconized as one of the most thoughtful Jewish writers and teachers of his generation and is therefore an "acknowledged expert in a relevant field" in the sense required by WP:RS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What is going on with this discussion? Editors keep arguing against saying she was bisexual when no one is saying we should say that, and editors are arguing against the use of the word "homosexual" as it is defined (although I have not suggested we use the word in the article). Bus stop, you said Attraction for someone of one's gender need not be explained as a homosexual attraction. That is one of the definitions of "homosexual", which is different from homosexual orientation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per DUE, WEIGHT, etc, as well as other, very good reasons above. One reference in a source that may be reliable does not mean we should include the information here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What about the article in the Palgrave Handook of Holocaust Literature (Springer, 2020)? It is by J Krongold and entitled "Anne Frank and Wartime Experimentation". Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, could you please give me a page number which discusses where Frank 'outs' herself? If not, can you explain why you have raised the question of this work? Having read through one of the chapters referred to above, I am mystified by why the work has been mentioned; there was no reference to sexuality what I have read.(It's not a great idea to point to a whole book and expect people to change their minds - you have to give us a little better information to work with). Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. I didn't have access to the source (could barely find the citation), and I thought it was related to the direction of work represented by this and this, but at a higher level. I was mistaken. Now that I have found someone with access, I will strikethrough my earlier comment. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to WP:BLUDGEON us by asking that question after every oppose !vote?

Given your history of confusing what a source actually says with your conclusions based upon your reading of the source, may we please have a direct quote where Krongold says that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual? I don't think it is reasonable to expect us to read lengthy document (some of which Google Books won't display) looking for the materiial that you claim exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice copypasta. What part of I am not saying that we should refer to Frank as "bisexual" or "queer" do you not understand? Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Guy Macon: I found another RS saying she discussed sexuality (hers and others') in the diary: BBC: Anne Frank's 'dirty jokes' found in hidden diary pages, May 2018 and another: Review in The Guardian: Anne Frank: the real story of the girl behind the diary, May 2019. GPinkerton (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are well known sources, and suitable for supporting a claim that Anne Frank talked about sec=x in her Diary. They don't support the claim that Anne Frank was a lesbian. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A claim which nobody in this discussion is making. I quite clearly specified "support inclusion of material" based on what the independent, reliable sources actually say, not that anyone has claimed that she was "a lesbian" - which is truly the dry-est of straw men. Nor have I proposed adding labels or categories FFS. All I want is to follow the relevant sources.Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please look at the link that is the very first thing in this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we are all discussing my statement Support inclusion - as far as I can tell, the pieces in Gay Star News, AfterEllen, and Religion News Service are all RS, which makes inclusion of this interpretation reasonable. I don't support the use of op-ed material in biographies (and this is a biography though not a BLP), but the existence of op-eds in Haaretz, Times of Israel, and sbs.com.au all support the inclusion of the material as DUE, so long as non-op-ed sources are the ones actually cited. To be clear, I am supporting inclusion of the material; this is not a proposal to use any specific label for Frank's sexuality, which is a question demanding more nuance and discussion.

What do you think we are discussing? Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Further comment @Guy Macon:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Cassianto: All of you have deployed the argument "but homosexual feelings are normal in adolescence so Anne Frank was normal". My question would be: at what age are they not "normal"? Does "normal" = exclusively heterosexual? Is everyone exclusively heterosexual until proven "abnormal"? GPinkerton (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly "normal" in this context is code for "not worthy of discussion in an encyclopaedia", though who knows why another term wasn't chosen, like "fluff". Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Read Demographics of sexual orientation to find statistics on sexual orientation.

Ignoring Newimpartial's snarky comment above, If well over 90% of the population shares a trait, that is what we call "normal". I never claimed that Anne Frank was a heterosexual. I argue against anybody that wanted to label Anne Frank as a heterosexual; there are no reliable sources that support the claim. I also reject the notion that abnormal is the opposite of normal. The correct phrase would be "relativity rare". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The page you pointed to gives an estimate of 8% of Dutch women identified as lesbian or bisexual. How rare is "relatively rare"? How rare does something have to be to be normal? GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Something that is true of 8% of the population is relativity rare compared to something that is true of 90%+ of the population. Something that is true of 8% of the population is relativity common compared to something that is true of 0.1% of the population. In absolute terms, 90% is certainly "common" and 0.1% is certainly "rare". How you would term 8% depends on the context. Again, you cannot take something that is true of 90%+ of females and use it as evidence of something that is true of 8% of females. But that's what breathless headlines like "As a Queer Jew, Learning Anne Frank Was Bisexual Is a Game-changer" (Haaretz) and "Anne Frank, My First Bisexual Hero" (Arre) are claiming. Please note that I didn't go searching for those headlines. I copied and pasted them from this very discussion.

If you are trying to imply something about my personal motivations (which is always a concern in discussions about these subjects), be aware that I have long supported equal treatment for the LGBT community and put in a huge amount of time campaigning against 2008 California Proposition 8. That's the direction of my personal bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Further further comment @Newimpartial: Are sure Krongold 2020 is the right paper? I don't see it here GPinkerton (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I made an (embarrassing) mistake, and have learned my lesson. See above. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Of all the many volumes of work written about Frank why would we consider this disputed material to be significant enough for inclusion. When we zoom out and say this is a summary of all the important work on Anne Frank is anyone going to reasonably say, "too bad the editors left this material on the floor"? Even if we take as a given that the sources here pass RS, that doesn't mean the overall topic is DUE for inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion

Quoting BillsYourUncle, posting on the fringe theories noticeboard:

"This type of thing comes up again and again with historical figures. Unless there is an explicit description of actual sex described by either the historical person or eyewitnesses, the matter always amounts to the dubious practice of trying to guess someone else's inner feelings. I think we need to require that any source is a longterm historian who has thoroughly studied this particular person in depth, otherwise the author has absolutely no hope of knowing what Anne Frank was "really like". That means: 1) No dabblers who flit from one subject to the next, writing a book on a different subject every year. 2) No authors from outside the history field, in fact no one from outside the subfield of WWII or mid-20th century history. 3) Absolutely no political activists, novelists, playwrights, etc. 4) Preferably someone who has written at least three or four books on Anne Frank or a closely related topic. That means even if the source is an article in the NYTimes (normally an RS), if it was written by a fashion editor trying to link a historical person to their favorite political cause then that's just an opinion by someone who doesn't have anything relevant to say about the subject. This is frankly just the normal procedure for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to rely on scholarly academic sources written by respected specialists on a relevant topic."

In my opinion, BillsYourUncle hit the nail on the head. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So, wait: do you get to !vote for other people, now? Do you have superpowers? Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I !voted for myself, and in my vote quoted another editor who has not !voted. Do you have a problem with that? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee and Guy Macon, do I infer correctly that you oppose inclusion of sources which characterize Frank's feelings as "bisexual", but you have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies (or her best friend Jacqueline van Maarsen specifically)? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I opposed "bisexual" because of no sources support it. Show me some reliable secondary sources that specifically and at length discuss Anne Frank's words about women's bodies and I will decide after evaluating those sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes in response to my question as asked. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that I answered both of the questions you asked. The direct "[do] you oppose inclusion of sources which characterize Frank's feelings as "bisexual" (the answer is "yes") and the implied "you have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies" (the answer is "I cannot answer until I see what sources you want to use to support those claims")

It sounds like the answer to the second question was also "yes". It doesn't make sense to say that you cannot answer whether you have commented on something. You either have or have not commented. I'm feeling uncomfortable with the way you're talking to me. We're working towards the same goals I think.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies. I have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies for a reason. I have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies because I have not seen what sources you want to use to support those claims. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Are you ready to tell me what sources you want to use to support those claims? Please indicate not only the source ("I plan on using 800-page book X") but what part of the source. Please indicate the exact wording you propose adding to the article along with the soure(s) that you say support your proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize; I see now how you could have easily read my question to be more than yes or no. Combined with your other comments I thought you were being difficult. I assume now that you didn't look at my source because you didn't realize that if you click on the book title you would be directed to just a couple of pages about the censorship of the diary. I'm not proposing exact wording add this point. Along with the source in my !vote above, please see the sources at The Diary of a Young Girl#Bans (I think that article should be more specific about the text). Also The Nation.[16] While I would use the words "homosexual themes" in The Diary of a Young Girl, I would avoid that word in her biography; I am just using these sources to give weight to this portion of the expurgated text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The existing section about the unabridged text is only sourced to a short Guardian article; we shouldn't require different standards for the text about women's bodies. I already provided sources in my !vote above, but it is interesting to see that The Advocate merely describes the entry as "articulating Anne's feelings for another girl's body."[17] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't find anything about any attraction to women's bodies in the sources posted in your !vote. Is the above link to The Advocate your source? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand where you're going with this. I don't know if this is pedantics. I don't recall using the word "attraction". I've provided three sources in my !vote in addition to The Advocate. At least three of the four sources discuss Frank's text about breasts and such. If we work towards including objective information about Frank's entries we might be able to satisfy some editors who insist of characterizing her sexuality when they find no mention of her feelings in the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Reading the comments again I see that I did use the phrase "expressed attraction to van Maarsen". Maybe I was thinking that I wasn't talking about orientation, but I'm surprised I didn't reread my !vote at the time. I regret contributing to the semantics imprecision and confusion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposed addition appears to be very inappropriate, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Vanishingly few reliable sources discuss her sexuality and the ones that mention it merely mention it in the sense of it being highly speculative and based on flimsy lines of evidence, which means these reliable sources are using very poor quality evidence to synthesise a conclusion, see WP:SYN. Lots of straight women find other women vaguely attractive on an emotional or physical level but without any desire for an intimate encounter or relationship and indeed such women would recoil at the thought of such an encounter. Nobody knows Anne Frank’s sexuality due to very limited evidence and the young age she tragically died at.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• A data point regarding 15-year-old girls; I showed this discussion to a good friend who, at the age of 30, is unambiguously lesbian. She made a comment that the passages about women's bodies in general and breasts in particular could very well just be the natural fascination girls who are just starting to develop breasts have regarding other girls who already have them. That's just one person's opinion, but it does make you stop and think. She also noted that sexuality changes as you mature, mentioning the stereotypical 8 year old boy who thinks girls are "yucky"[18] turning into a 16 year old who is fascinated by them. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and not relevant. Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds very "gal pals".[19] I would ask your lesbian friend if she had a "terrible desire" to kiss her boy friends (whom she was jealous over spending time with other girls) and would "go into ecstasies every time [she would see] the naked figure of a [man]", bringing her to tears. Or...ask a straight girl. But it doesn't matter what we think. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That policy only applies to article content, not talk pages, we are on a talk page here. Relevant original thoughts and opinions do have some minor relevance when it comes to determining consensus and the quality and reliability of sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel the above discussion could do with more reference to Wikipedia policy and more reference to what reliable sources actually say.

Several editors above are indulging in WP:SYNTH themselves to dismiss what certain sources say. Pertinent here is doi:10.1080/10665684.2011.563182 that talks about the use of the diary in an educational setting and how to handle the issue of Frank's sexuality: it describes how a teacher dismisses the suggestion that Frank is gay, explaining rather that she is curious. It then goes on: "While curiosity is a plausible explanation for Anne's behavior, Eder's automatic denial of the students’ suggestion that the character might actually be gay is an example of the exclusion of the possibility of same-sex desire. If being gay were acceptable in this community of practice, then a teacher would at least acknowledge it as a possibility, instead of entirely dismissing it. A teacher response of, “Well, it's possible she's attracted to her friend, but it's also possible she's simply curious,” would make a difference in terms of the message provided to the students." Bondegezou (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Formulate a proper RfC that has explicit alternatives. That's how to resolve this issue, which has degenerated into an argument about what the argument is about. Zero^talk 14:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion She was too young and too isolated for us to know if she was bisexual or lesbian. My point is not that she wasn't; my point is that there is no way to know it for sure. And we should be silent about what cannot be known. Since there is no way to know, all claims about her sexuality are bunk by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with the above, a proper RfC should be formulated, it’s getting muddled over what’s being argued here. QueerFilmNerd^talk 16:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to ping everyone who participated here to the RfC.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: As someone who routinely edits sexuality topics, more than a few people asked me via email to take a look at this. No, I wasn't canvassed to comment a certain way. They simply wanted me to take a look, and didn't pile on my talk page with requests for me to do so, which I appreciate. I didn't want to because I have enough controversial topics to concern myself with. I wish I had not read any of this discussion. This is because it has some of the most misguided posts about sexuality I have ever read.

We have Guy Macon repeatedly stating "feelings that pretty much every normal 15 year old girl experiences." And at 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC), stating, "[S]omething that is true of 90%+ of females." Where are you getting this? High-quality sources have stated this, you say?

We have Cassianto stressing the word child, apparently not knowing the difference between child sexuality and adolescent sexuality, acting like Wikipedia shouldn't discuss adolescent sexuality...because "creepy." And, yes, Cassianto, despite this topic specifically being about Anne Frank, I think your comments about discussing the sexuality of 15-year-olds are quite clear. As seen by the links I pointed to, Wikipedia has articles on both child and adolescent sexuality. They are not the same thing. And it's common sense that adolescents/teenagers are sexual. There are certainly enough books, television shows, and films (fictional and non-fictional for each) incorporating adolescent/teenage sexuality because of this reality.

Regarding the arguments that pretty much amount to "they grow out of it" or "adolescents can't possibly have a solid sexual orientation"? People's sexual orientations/sexualities do not suddenly form at the magical age of 18. They are formed significantly before that point. People usually realize that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual before that point. And the biology of sexual orientation research is clear that sexual orientation is very likely biological (begins before birth, mainly forming in the womb), with social environment playing a minor role in the equation, especially for males (since it seems social environment may be more relevant for females in this regard). Ask yourselves if you truly believe that gay teenage boys sexually fantasize about teenage girls, or think about teenage girls in any truly sexual way that is not based on heteronormativity. What data states that they have a passing sexual attraction to teenage girls? What data states that it's standard for heterosexual teenage boys to sexually fantasize about other teenage boys, or that they have a passing sexual attraction to teenage boys? So why make it seem like it's standard for teenage girls to sexually fantasize about and/or be sexually attracted to other teenage girls? Because of the reported sexual fluidity of teenage girls and women? Yes, people can be confused about their sexuality as a teenager, or can be questioning, and the topic of sexual fluidity does exist, especially with regard to teenage girls and women. But researchers do not believe in stating that people "grow out of their sexual attraction." Stuff like ex-gay is fringe. And the Wikipedia article on it has a section on gay and lesbian teenagers. Because, you know, gay and lesbian teenagers do exist.

Sexual orientation is mainly stable. And for those, particularly women, it's supposedly not stable for, it's believed by enough researchers that these people may have been bisexual all along and did not have a sexual identity that aligns with their actual sexual orientation. Sexual identity and sexual orientation are two different things. Many gay men, for example, have identified as heterosexual. And in the case of prison sexuality, many heterosexual men relay that they weren't actually sexually attracted to the men they had sex with. Many or most of them fantasized about having sex with women during the act(s). Sexual orientation is all about the sexual fantasies -- what goes on in the mind.

At 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC), we have Bus stop stating, "Attraction for someone of one's gender need not be explained as a homosexual attraction." What? The definition of homosexuality is clear. If genuine romantic/sexual attraction is involved, that is homosexuality. And, of course, it's bisexuality if genuine romantic/sexual attraction to both sexes is the case.

Oh, and the Demographics of sexual orientation article is mainly based on sexual identity. We don't actually know what is in those people's heads. But, yes, the research does indicate that the vast majority of people are heterosexual.

I'm not commenting on whether or not to include or exclude the content in question. This discussion is too aggravating, and I don't want to get dragged into it beyond this post. No need to ping me. I can check back for replies, but I don't see myself responding extensively, which would include me pointing to academic sources to make my points very clear. There are some topics -- such as child and adolescent sexuality -- where there's just too much misunderstanding for me and others to get laypeople to understand (at least without taking up a lot of time). And, please, per WP:TALKO, do not break up my post to reply. If you reply, reply beneath my post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Attempt to bypass discussion by editing The Diary of a Young Girl

Attempt to bypass discussion by editing The Diary of a Young Girl: [20][21]

Please put The Diary of a Young Girl on your watchlist it it isn't already. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be useful to get a conclusion on the above RfC, but those look like valuable entries to me and I struggle to see what the problem is with them. Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy, the phrase in the cited source that you euphemized in this edit to curiosity about the body of a close friend was explored her own budding sexual feelings toward members of the same and opposite sex. Unless you are arguing that the HistoryExtra source (which is already used) is not reliable, what is the policy-relevant rationale for your euphemism? This looks like pure BATTLEGROUND to me, with an accent of RGW.

Imagine that you had not been fighting this battle for the last couple of years: which phrase best captures explored her own budding sexual feelings toward members of the same and opposite sex: curiosity about the body of a close friend or experiences of same-sex attraction? Well, neither of them do it justice, because neither incorporates the same and opposite sex aspect, but one choice is clearly going further out of its way to be euphemistic IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider the current text, references to touching her friends' breasts, an acceptable compromise: that is literally what happened with zero interpretation whatsoever. But I still find the insistence that something that is plainly present within the reliable sources already in this article is not present in reliable sources to be weird and suspicious. I don't think anyone thinks that they want to censor this content, but I also think few censors think of themselves as censors, and that an objective look at the situation here reveals pretty clearly what's going on. Loki (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What's going on is that it's seen as ok to mention menstruation, "dirty jokes", and genitalia, but mentioning her wanting to touch her friend's breasts and kiss her is met with passionate objections as UNDUE. The thought of two teenage girls touching each others' breasts is just so threatening that editors cannot think rationally. This is homophobic, sexist, and ageist. Wikipedia is not written for old men. Teen girls exist; they read Wikipedia; they have sex with each other. If that's too threatening for some men to handle, they can read another article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You complain about ageism and sexism while making stereotypical assertions about old men? Zero^talk 04:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the editors here who are objecting to discussing the sexuality of 15 year old girls are themselves 15 year old girls? Or do you think many of them are something very different: old (by comparison) men. The person who initiated this discussion is an old man. Like I said, some men. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

As an old man, can you tell me why you are opposed to mentioning Jacqueline's breasts in the article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not acceptable. You are begging to be blocked and I advise you to stop it before that's what you get. Zero^talk 13:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Although Roxy the Dog keeps trying to tell us. Newimpartial (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the insensitivity; I want to be blunt not attacking. I am asking you why, as an older man (the group I referenced), are you opposed to candid language referencing Jacqueline's breasts being in the article? I just can't see someone reacting the same way if they see the text as representing their own voice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Most 15-year-old girls, like most people in general, reject all claims that someone else speaks in their voice simply because the other person shares their age, skin color, religion, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that's some kind of pedandics.  I think most people recognize that the N-word sounds different depending on who says it. (Partly) what's happening is, editors who are not 15 year-old girls are deciding for a 15 year-old girl that they must censor the words of the censorship of her words because they are the words of a 15 year-old girl. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Anne herself excluded those parts of her diary when she rewrote it with an eye to publication. It is other people (probably mostly men, not that that matters) who decided to publish them anyway against Anne's apparent wishes. Your arguments are broken at a fundamental level. Zero^talk 02:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you want to say about Melissa Müller, calling her "a man" would be a bit of a stretch. Or Mirjam Pressler, for that matter. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Her father was a man, presumably. Like I said, "mostly" and "not that it matters". The claim that this argument consists of men displaying their misoginistic prejudices against a young girl is both a violation of WP:NPA and false. Zero^talk 03:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That is as may be, but *my* point here is that the two people most responsible for the publication of additional unexpurgated material since the mid-1990s are both women. The Netherlands War Institute folks responsible for the prior "Critical Edition" do not seem to have their names attached to the project, at least for those of us without a copy. And of course if you are talking about the original 1950s expurgated publication, that was thoroughly male-led. Newimpartial (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, that Anne herself excluded those parts of her diary is missing the point. As I said, editors are objecting to including her words because they are the words of a 15 year-old girl. You have thus far given no reason for your !vote, so I'll repeat my question to you which you did not answer; why you are opposed to mentioning Jacqueline's breasts in the article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Unwatching this page

I have decided to unwatch this and related pages. I have made my point as best I can and don't think more words from me will change any opinions at this point. Also, I have a suspicion in the back of my mind that this just might end up at Arbcom, and I want to be able to say I withdrew from the discussion. Please don't ping me. If something absolutely requires my attention, please post on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If anyone knows the background around why this would end up at Arbcom I'd like to know. I'll take a break for a couple days from this emotional topic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, well, there's WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, the relentless mining of the dusty corners of the web for sources to support a pre-existing conlusion, and so on - but Guy already pointed all that out. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG What is it that you are accusing me of not hearing? You and Guy Macon are making strawman arguments and misrepresentations which I have to repeatedly correct, so isn't it you who "didn't hear that"? As I've repeatedly said, I am not arguing to include characterizations of same-sex attraction or bisexuality; I am simply arguing to include objective descriptions of her own diary entries. Pretty much any source you find which discusses the expurgated text mentions the removal of her diary entry about wanting to touch her friend's breasts...it's a fact that the entry was removed, so if we have a section in this article about the expurgated text it only makes sense that we would also mention it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut: "Pretty much any source you find which discusses the expurgated text mentions the removal of her diary entry about wanting to touch her friend's breasts." rather than try and insinuate that it's some sort of homophobic cover-up (as some have here), why don't we just settle for the fact that the reason we (and others) don't include this information is because it's throughly indecent to include, not to mention blindingly unimportant? Cassianto^Talk 14:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED.  The sources above say it's important. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, exactly. Anne Frank had a teenaged crush on a female friend. This is generally considered completely trivial. Move on. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, no, we are pointing out that LGBT groups claiming Anne Frank as "one of ours" is revisionism and based on sourcing that supports, at best, a teenaged crush. You can't characterise her as LGBT in any form because she was killed before she had time to find out, and lived at a time when societal counter-pressures would have been immense anyway. Most of the arguments above are blatant synthesis followed by relentless bludgeoning to wear everyone else down so you can get what you want. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Which editors are bludgeoning and making those arguments? Your "you" statements make me feel like you are talking about me but I have made no such arguments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, literally one editor out of forty is arguing for "characterizing her as LGBT" and that editor is not Kolya. Loki (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Academic sources on Frank and sexuality

Just to inform the above RfC or future possible edits, here are some more academic references pertinent to these issues in a broad sense and their excision before publication. Waaldijk (1993, doi:10.1016/0277-5395(93)90022-2) discusses Frank's words relating to sexuality and being a woman, and how they've been edited. Kuitert (2010, doi:10.1163/001495210X12561886980275) discusses who did the censoring of the original published version of the diary. I mentioned Puchner & Klein (2011, doi:10.1080/10665684.2011.563182) above, who discuss the use of Frank's diary in education and discuss how to talk about sexuality. Bankirer (2018, doi:10.26262/gramma.v25i0.6589) discusses Frank's writings on sexual feelings at length. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the doi:10.26262/gramma.v25i0.6589 source, and this is how the author describes the subject: "exploring her desires as well as her voice as a woman." Woman? Anne Frank was 15 years old when she was exterminated. A 13, 14, 15-year-old female is not a woman. And a 15-year-old girl in her era cannot be compared with a 15-year-old in today's sex-saturated world. It appears that even these "academic" sources need to be taken with a grain of salt. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, adding extensive details about the sexual musings of a 15-year-old girl is WP:UNDUE. I also strongly suspect that there is an agenda-driven reason why we first saw multiple attempts to label her as bisexual, and when that didn't fly we then saw multiple attempts include her words about same-sex attraction.

I think it is worth noting that there have been multiple attempts include her words about same-sex attraction, but zero attempts to include her words questioning the small size of her vagina compared to a penis or a baby. Or her words about pubic hair. Or her words about prostitution. Or her words about her father's fondness for talking about farting. Or her discovery that urine does not come out of the clitoris. Yes all of those passages exist and all were censored to avoid offending a 1940s audience, but they simply are not notable parts of the diary and they have nothing to do with what makes Anne Frank notable.

I suspect that some editors would really like to see a huge section about how Anne Frank is a gay icon with a small (oh, by the way, she was also murdered by the Nazis) note at the bottom. I exaggerate, but not much. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I provided counterarguments to your identical comment above which you have completely ignored.  This seems to show a motivation to censor regardless of policy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, to you "completely ignored" means "responded to at length". That was the place where you explained why you personally are focusing on same-sex attraction -- because of me. Who knew I had such power over your behavior? It still doesn't explain the dozens of attempts by other editors though. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)::::

Sigh, we are all arguing about same-sex attraction because of you; you initiated the present discussion; I have been trying to point out the irony that you do not see why everyone is focusing on this when you yourself initiated this topic. You're both making the conversation revolve around you and you don't see why that is. Again, you have not responded to my arguments: the existing text you quoted already references genitalia and her puzzlement regarding how penises and babies could fit through a vagina, and the text about prostitution appears to have been hidden behind glued pages until 2018.[22] We are less focused on subjects like farting which her father and not publishers removed. (Otto did not actually remove the text about genitalia and her puzzlement....) You also have ignored that Anne's feelings about her best friend Jacqueline are about herself and her life in a way that descriptions of bodily functions are not. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"I think it is worth noting that there have been multiple attempts include her words about same-sex attraction." And not just about same-sex attraction, but that it is bisexual attraction. Anyone with any education about sexual orientation knows that fantasizing about both sexes, or being involved with both, is a step in the coming out process for many (most, imo) homosexuals. So why tag her as being "bisexual" when she could have been a homosexual girl discovering her nature? I personally don't believe she was either one, but the lesbophobia by 'queer archeologists' and grave diggers is ridiculously blatant. B.s. is as b.s. does. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to Pyxis Solitary above, Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not the opinions of editors. If you are elevating your opinions above sources, that's WP:OR and a mistake. Likewise, Guy Macon, what particular issues should be covered is again determined by what reliable sources say, not by the opinions of editors. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You got it partially right (Wikipedia is not based on the opinions of editors), but your claim that "Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say" oversimplifies our actual policies. We don't automatically include anything that is in a reliable source. As it says in WP:WEIGHT:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Are these theories about Anne Frank's sexual orientation discussed in mainstream biographies of Anne Frank or in standard reference works covering the holocaust? No.

• Can you name prominent adherents of these theories about Anne Frank's sexual orientation? No.

Are these theories about Anne Frank's sexual orientation held by an extremely small minority? yes,

The mainstream view supported by multiple reliable scientific sources on the topic of sexuality and adolescence is that the feelings Anne Frank reported are common among 15-year-old girls. The view that they prove that she was heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual is an extreme WP:FRINGE viewpoint, not supported by any reliable sources. The attempt to include the exact words from a primary source is a transparent attempt to coat-rack in material that supports the above Fringe POV despite no reliable secondary source supporting it. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Guy Macon. I am glad that we are in agreement that we should follow what reliable sources say rather than the opinions of editors.

I support what is clearly the consensus view in the RfC above that we should not be labelling Frank as bisexual or homosexual. Perhaps we can move beyond that discussion? I think we nearly all agree with you on that. The question where we are yet to resolve a consensus is whether the article should say something — and if so, what — about Frank's sexuality and sexual feelings, how they were removed from the published diary, and how the text has been subsequently interpreted. Do significant reliable sources discuss these issues? Yes.

You ask Are these theories about Anne Frank's sexual orientation discussed in mainstream biographies of Anne Frank or in standard reference works covering the holocaust? Examples are given below of mainstream biographies discussing these issues. I am very happy to see text based on what they say. That said, I see no reason in policy that restricts us to mainstream biographies of Anne Frank or [...] standard reference works covering the holocaust. Good, reliable sources of other sorts — about the history of sexuality, about how Frank is read, or used in education, etc. — also count as RS. Myself and others have given several examples in books and academic journals, in addition to the earlier examples in newspapers and news websites. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are misusing policy. Although it is true that we may only include material covered by reliable sources, the converse is not true. Just because a book-length biography includes a few paragraphs on something doesn't mean that it is appropriate for a brief encyclopedia article. The fact is that Frank's private thoughts on sexuality are neither notable in themselves nor more than an infinitesimal part of the reason Frank herself is notable. Only the censorship of the diary is notable, and that rather marginally. Zero^talk 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that the article shouldn't cover everything ever mentioned by an RS. We do select based on the amount of coverage. So, the question is what do sources say, and how many? You characterise the situation as Just because a book-length biography includes a few paragraphs on something. However, over a dozen citations have been provided in the discussion so far: from a full-length article in Haaretz to paragraphs in a number of biographies to various academic papers. Clearly we're talking about more than a few paragraphs in one biography.

I'm not saying we should have a huge section on this, but it seems to me that we should have more than is in the current article. I was thinking a few sentences, maybe half a paragraph. That, it seems to me, would reflect the coverage we see in sources. I feel it would benefit the journey towards a consensus, whatever we finally decide, if editors would engage with the sources presented. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Her entire two years in the Achterhuis are described in three short paragraphs; now we should add "a few sentences" on this? Please review WP:UNDUE. `Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, almost certainly yes. Second of all, as it currently stands 2 would involve adding literally a single clause consisting of only 5 words. Above, ReconditeRodent posted an example paragraph that mentions her "experiences of same-sex attraction" to add to the article. Separately, they also added the paragraph to the article, minus the single clause "experiences of same-sex attraction". Now, it seems to me that if that paragraph is unobjectionable without the clause, as it seems to have been since it's been in the article a week now, and if the clause is equally well attested in reliable sources as the rest of the paragraph, as it certainly is, there cannot be a WP:UNDUE issue. Rather this an issue of WP:NOTCENSORED: editors insist on treating perfectly parallel information differently based on whether it pertains to homosexuality or not. Loki (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The removed claim is not found in any reliable source. Unlike her exploration of her genitalia, and her thoughts on menstruation, there is zero evidence supporting a claim of "experiences of same-sex attraction" in any reliable source. The Phenomenon of Anne Frank by David Barnouw says "There is one clear example of intervention by the publisher. It concerns a passage in which Anne describes how in the past she spent the night with her girlfriend Jacque and was curious about her body". Curiosity about the female body (something every 15-year-old girl experiences) does not equal same-sex attraction. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Loki, you may be suggesting "only 5 words", but Bondegezou is clearly suggesting something much more lengthy. And even if it's "only 5 words", look at it this way: dozens of full-length books have been written about Anne Frank and her diary, and thousands more articles. How many words do you think have been written about her? Certainly tens of millions. Perhaps hundreds of millions? Now what percent of those have been devoted to her "experiences of same-sex attraction"? 0.001%? 0.0001%? All that has been found below are a few sentences on her life/writings that might be relevant to this. This article is around 8000 words; 0.001% of that is 0 words. Sometimes WP:UNDUE means that we write 0 words in an article about a topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to say "same-sex attraction"; and we shouldn't use characterizations like "curious" when we can objectively describe what the text says. As quoted below, Anne Frank: Reflections on Her Life and Legacy says, "An important deletion in the Dutch version c concerns the entry describing Anne's curiosity about the body of her best friend Jacqueline: [diary excerpt]. In the Dutch version, the references to feeling her friend's breasts and the kiss are left out, but both appear in the English version."  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not precious about the exact text we write here. I'm happy with LokiTheLiar's analysis of the situation and suggested wording. I am not suggesting something much more lengthy. Equally, given Guy Macon's and others' concerns, I'm happy with Kolya Butternut's proposal to avoid the phrase "same-sex attraction". Let's work towards a compromise here.

Sorry, Jayjg, I am less convinced by that analysis of percentages! You're guessing at numbers, rather downplaying the dozen RS offered, and then applying some questionable maths to them. WP:NOTPAPER means we can make the article longer if there's more to say. Frank, her life and the reception to her diary are all very important topics. Writing more material on them is a good thing. We can have a discussion about where to say what, in which articles, if you think there isn't space for 5 more words. Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Quotes from book sources

"[T]he publishers suggested that references to sex, menstruation, and two girls touching each other's breasts be deleted because they lacked the proper degree of 'propriety' for a Dutch audience." Anne Frank's The Diary of Anne Frank [23]

"The English version c, the Diary of a Young Girl, contained more open discussion of sexuality than the Dutch version. An important deletion in the Dutch version c concerns the entry describing Anne's curiosity about the body of her best friend Jacqueline: [diary excerpt]. In the Dutch version, the references to feeling her friend's breasts and the kiss are left out, but both appear in the English version." Anne Frank: Reflections on Her Life and Legacy [24]

"There is one clear example of intervention by the publisher.  It concerns a passage in which Anne describes how in the past she spent the night with her girlfriend Jacque and was curious about her body:  [diary excerpt]. Anne didn't copy this in her second version, and it's not in the 1947 printed version.  Remarkably, this deleted section did appear in the 1950 translation, thanks to Otto Frank. He clearly disagreed with these and other deletions and sent them to the English publisher and the translator.  According to his enclosed letter, these were passages 'which were not printed in the Dutch edition  because they were either too long or were likely to offend Dutch Puritan or Catholic susceptibilities [...] and wonder if you would be so good as to translate them for us.' The English translation is therefore slightly more extensive than the original Dutch publication." The Phenomenon of Anne Frank by David Barnouw [25] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these additions, Kolya Butternut. It seems clear that this is something RS choose to talk about, ergo the article should reflect that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Those sources chose to talk about the censorship, which we already have a section on: Anne Frank#Censored sections. This creepy fascination with every tiny detail of the exact things that one particular 15-year-old girl was curious about is WP:UNDUE. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The current section does not include text referencing the expurgated homoerotic text, that is why the above RfC asks: "2. Should we include mention of Anne’s exploration of her sexuality with her friend which was removed and later re-added in a later edition?". Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And I will repeat, her relationship with her best friend Jacqueline is not a tiny detail. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please make up you mind. Do you want the article to contain "the expurgated homoerotic text... Anne’s exploration of her sexuality with her friend" or do you want the article to contain material about "her relationship with her best friend Jacqueline"? I doubt that anyone would object to the latter as long as it wasn't used as a coatrack for including what you call "the expurgated homoerotic text" and your sources call "Anne's curiosity about the body of her best friend". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Both? We haven't really discussed including more information about her relationships. I'm not sure what you're trying to say by singling out the word "curiosity" when used in the context of homoerotic behavior. Anne desired to touch her friend's breasts but instead only kissed her; that is by definition homoerotic; I don't believe I've made claims about her sexual orientation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. The normal behavior found in pretty much every 15-year-old girl is not "by definition homoerotic". This is one of those cases where a Wikipedia editor uses the phrase "by definition,..." as a stand in for "according to my original research,...". I remember a while back (does anybody remember what talk page this was on?) we had a Wikipedia editor start with an account of a 10-year-old boy kissing his 12-year-old sister because they were curious about what the mouth-to-mouth kissing they saw in the movies was like, and then using that same "by definition" argument to try to claim that the two had incestuous feelings toward one another. Same error. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps my intended meaning of the word homoerotic is unclear. From Homoeroticism:

Despite an ever-changing and evolving set of modern classifications, members of the same sex often formed intimate associations (many of which were erotic as well as emotional) on their own terms, most notably in the "romantic friendships" documented in the letters and papers of 18th- and 19th- century men and women (see Rictor Norton, ed., My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries, Gay Sunshine Press, 1998). These romantic friendships, which may or may not have included genital sex, were characterized by passionate emotional attachments and what modern thinkers would consider homoerotic overtones.

I am using the word to mean passion towards the same sex or behavior that is characteristic of homosexuality without necessarily being sexual. For instance, two heterosexual male friends jokingly humping each other is homoerotic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And a child's natural curiosity about the human body is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You're focusing on semantics at the expense of what I'm trying to communicate. Forget characterizations; I'm talking about the diary entry where she talks about wanting to touch breasts, which was expurgated. But this is not "curiosity": "I go into ecstasies every time I see the naked figure of a woman, such as Venus". Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable secondary source that specifically says that Anne Frank had a same-sex attraction. A primary source saying that she goes into ecstasies viewing a marble statue plus your WP:SYNTH isn't good enough. Then, once you have established that it passes WP:V (which you have so far failed to do), then you can address the multiple editors who have repeatedly told you that it fails WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You're blatantly creating a strawman. I have clarified over and over again that I am not claiming she had a same-sex attraction. I stated that we should avoid characterizing her words, and I am also disagreeing with your preferred characterization of "curiosity", which does not summarize the entire diary entry. Editors haven't repeatedly told me about WEIGHT; I have barely engaged in that discussion because I am having to correct your misrepresentations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, this is a girl growing up with a very restricted set of contacts. There is a substantial literature on same-sex crushes among adolescents who have no lingering gay or bisexual attractions post-adolescence. I think you'd find that anyone with such a restricted circle (e.g. in a single-sex boarding school) would undergo the same experimentation.

Perhaps that's why the only sources that use the words that some are so determined to add - e.g. "bisexual" - are modern activist sources, not serious scholarly ones. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, why do you think anyone is determined to add the word "bisexual"? Look at the RfC above, there's literally 1 person out of about 40 that voted yes to 1. Loki (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What restricted set of contacts? Her diary entry about wanting to touch her friend's breasts is about before she went into hiding. I have not been arguing to include any characterizations of same-sex attraction or bisexuality; I have simply been arguing to include an objective description of her own words. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG said, There is a substantial literature on same-sex crushes among adolescents who have no lingering gay or bisexual attractions post-adolescence. To apply that to this article would clearly be WP:SYNTH. We should base edits to this article on what reliable sources about Anne Frank say, not on editors' interpretations. Bondegezou (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, and the word bisexual appears... nowhere. As usual. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, who do you think is trying to insert the word "bisexual" in this discussion? Not any of the people you are responding to, and I thought STRAWMAN argumentation was frowned upon on WP Talk pages. You have been repeating such arguments here and elsewhere for some time. Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the HistoryExtra source - which is already cited in the article - refers to passages in the Diary where Anne explored her own budding sexual feelings toward members of the same and opposite sex. If it isn't a reliable source, what is it doing in the article? If it is reliable, why isn't it reliable for that statement? And if you are distinguishing between "same-sex attraction" and "feelings toward members of the same ... sex" then it seems to me that you are engaging in purely semantic disputation, for some reason. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)