Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC regarding the inclusion of content regarding Anne's sexuality

So, for days we have been arguing over the inclusion of content regarding Anne’s sexuality. As it went on, it became very muddled about what the argument was about. Here is a proper RfC, which should have been done in the first place, with the two things we’re arguing over:

1. Should we include a label on Anne’s sexuality (e.g. bisexual, etc), which then places her in an LGBT category?
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?

QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to bullet (1), Yes to bullet (2), with the latter to be sourced and edited into the (currently weirdly specific and single-sourced) "genitalia" paragraph of the current article.
  I also think it would help the RfC if the two bullets were numbered (1) and (2). Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 2, see rest of comment on 1: 2 is a big part of the story of the censorship of her diary and in particular why certain parts were censored. It's been covered in plenty of reliable sources and we should obviously mention it. Many of those same sources have also drawn the conclusion from the censored material that she was either definitely or possibly bisexual. I don't think "definitely" is supported by the underlying evidence but I could see "possibly" with attribution. Loki (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• No to both In the larger picture of the person it's not clear either item is DUE. The first, thus far, does not have clear RS support. The second seems more like a coatrack than anything else. This seems like an agenda to shoehorn material into the article rather than to include it because normal reviews of all the volumes of work on the subject would include this. Springee (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's a lot of speculation on the motives of editors, for a very small policy-relevant !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  You think UNDUE is a small policy? Springee (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  There are roughly 10 words clearly based on policy and more than 30 hinging on the motives of other editors, if you take a metrics-based approach. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  OK, how about this. Wikipedia is not the engine of knowledge pulling the world to a new understanding. Instead Wikipedia is the caboose of knowledge. We wait for others to make it clear this content is the standard before adding it here. Springee (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, joy. We get to experience Newimpartial WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion by starting a new thread under every !vote that doesn't go his way again. I can hardly contain my enthusiasm. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Do try. Also, if you are making an implicit comment about the prior discussion, perhaps there is a pot::kettle point to be made, of some kind. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to both points. I second Springee's sentiments, and the topic is aside from her fame — then, as now. (And, kudos, @Springee: for the apt train metaphor.) (Belatedly,) Lindenfall (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• No to both
  User:BillsYourUncle, posting on the fringe theories noticeboard, explained how we should handle this far better than I could:

  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.

  My name is Inigo Montoya. You deleted my coatrack. Prepare to be talked to death. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Still no. Enough of this bullshit. Guy (help!) 21:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  JvG, I askedvery nicely why you hold a sourcing standard for 2. different from that characterizing the rest of the article, and you have yet to answer. Could you be so kind? Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  WP:BLUDGEON. Please stop this behavior. You had your chance to make your case in your !vote. Please let other editors have a chance to weigh in without being challenged by you. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Newimpartial, I already did, but you don't appear to like the answer. I can't really help with that. Guy (help!) 21:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  If you are referring to this, it doesn't answer 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) in any way. The material already in the article concerns the same "historical figure" as this material, and you have made no argument why the standard for this topic should be different. All you did was handwave to "activist sources", but the source I have referenced consistently in this discussion, Religion News, is not in any sense activist and the column in question on Anne Frank is by a non-activist writer (I assume Jewish writers can still count as "non-activist") who satisfies WP:RS standards. So I really would appreciate an answer to my actual question, rather than an irritated handwave. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Newimpartial, put down the bludgeon. Guy (help!) 11:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sure. And I trust that the closer will treat JvG's !vote with the (policy-compliant) weight it deserves. Newimpartial (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Question. Why does the section Anne Frank#Unabridged version mention Frank's entries about genitalia, "puzzlement" about sex and childbirth, but conspicuously leave out the entry about wanting to kiss and touch her friend, which was also expurgated?[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"[C]onspicuously", Kolya Butternut? Therein lies the problem. We live in an age in which everything (exaggeration) indicates homosexuality. (Just my opinion.) But Anne Frank didn't live in the age of everything (exaggeration again) being an indication of cisgender, transgender, transsexual, asexual, bisexual, homosexual, and myriad other sexual orientations. I will note that you are not complaining that "conspicuously" absent are references to her and her sister's menstruation. Why not—because our age is not as preoccupied with menstruation as it is with alternative sexual orientations? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If the sources which reflect our "age" focus on sexuality, then we must as well. The focus is on objectively homoerotic behavior, not necessarily homosexual orientation. Note that the source below which I referenced gives much less weight to menstruation than to the entry about her erotic feelings. The sources about modern censorship typically focus on the graphic descriptions of genitalia and homoeroticism.[4][5] But yes, the section is titled "Unabridged version", so it should discuss the unsexy relationship drama in addition to the text which generates controversy in our "age".

CENSORSHIP HISTORY

Censorship of Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl began with its initial publication in the Netherlands. Anxious to spare the feelings of their protectors and the memory of the other occupants, Otto Frank excised details of the squabbling among the occupants of the annex and sections in which Anne complained about the selfishness or insensitivity of others. Because she viewed the diary as her private writing, Anne frequently expressed unadorned thoughts and concerns and used the diary as a means of venting her frustrations with the situation. Her father removed such passages without changing significantly the overall representations of the others or their relationships. Once Otto Frank sought a publisher, additional censorship was required. The Dutch publisher, Contact, required the removal of certain passages that the editors viewed as “tasteless” or “unseemly.” These included Anne’s references to her and her sister’s menstruation. Anne’s growing sexual curiosity was also deemed unacceptable, despite the naturalness of such curiosity in an adolescent. Therefore, a passage in which she recalls a friend’s developing breasts and muses about wanting to touch them was removed. The publisher also asked that Otto Frank delete all “offensive” remarks made by Anne about her mother. In 1950, the German publishing firm of Lambert Schneider commissioned a German translation, and additional censorship occurred. The Critical Edition notes that material that would have been especially offensive to German readers was removed. One such passage written by Anne related the rule in the annex that everyone was required “to speak softly at all times, in any civilized language, therefore not in German,” which Lambert Schneider changed to “All civilized languages . . . but softly.” The 1952 publication of the diary in England restored most of the excised material. More recent challenges have focused on Anne’s growing sexual awareness. In a January 5, 1944, entry Anne recollects sleeping with a girlfriend and having “a strong desire to kiss her,” which she did. She states further that she was terribly curious about the other girl’s body, “for she had always kept it hidden from me. I asked her whether, as proof of our friendship, we should feel one another’s breasts, but she refused. I go into ecstasies every time I see the naked figure of a woman, such as Venus, for example. . . . If only I had a girl friend!” At the same time, she develops a crush on Peter Van Daan, who shows her “the male organs” of a cat, and with whom she experiences her first ardent kiss on the mouth, questioning if she “should have yielded so soon.” She also observes increased flirting between the dentist and Mrs. Van Daan and notes that “Dussel is beginning to get longings for women.” In 1982, parents in Wise County, Virginia, challenged the use of the book in school and asserted that Anne’s discussion of sexual matters was “inappropriate” and “offensive” and that the criticism of her mother and of the other adults “undermines adult authority.” Others have objected to the discussion of “the mistreatment of the Jewish people,” and one parent of Arab ancestry objected to the portrayal of a Jewish girl. In 1983, four members of the Alabama Textbook Commission wanted to reject the title for use in the schools because it was “a real downer.”[6]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to both Her sexuality is irrelevant to her notability. Issues regarding (alleged?) censorship in the book belong in the article about the book, not here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 2. If we're going to have a section about the expurgated/censored text, we obviously should include reference to the homoerotic entries. More importantly, Jacqueline van Maarsen is conspicuously absent from the article. Jacque was her best friend and deserves mention in the article beyond placement in a template. We have "Personal life" sections for famous people, so it makes sense to discuss her most intimate friends, who seem to have been Peter van Pels, Peter Schiff,[7] and Jacque. The homoeroticism may be the most notable piece of the diary in relationship to Jacque.[8][9] Also per #Quotes from book sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  I feel like Question 2 isn't being interpreted consistently.  It sounds like people are voting to say that they don't want characterizations about homosexuality or same-sex attraction (which I don't want either), but we have not been discussing whether to simply include text about the expurgation of her text referencing touching breasts, without characterizing this text.  I would ask that the closer of this RfC carefully distinguish between these discussions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• NO! to 1. As for 2, one sentence noting the fact of the censorship in general terms, with no mention of genitalia, breasts, kissing girls or whatever. Something like "Passages in which Frank described her emerging sexual feelings were censored by her father but restored in later editions." with a serious reference preferably academic. Zero^talk 04:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  The above seems like a great way of handling it. It gives the reader the important information without being a coatrack for unsourced speculation about a 15-year-old girl's sexual preferences. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  What you're seeing as an agenda to coatrack is actually resistance to what I perceive as an agenda to censor. To describe the expurgated text as "candid descriptions of genitalia, menstruation, and her desire to touch herself and her friend Jacqueline" is simply more educational about Frank's life and diary, and about what the censor's have focused on. The world is fascinated with her because she humanizes the experience of the victims of WWII and the Holocaust. Japan even named tampons after her.[10] Your argument should be about WEIGHT, but instead you have been mischaracterizing me as arguing to include "speculation" about her "sexual preferences". (The term "sexual preference" is out of place in this discussion and indicates a lack of nuance.) A 15-year-old girl's sexual thoughts are, as the sources show, important to the world (and other 15-year-old girls!). Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I would challenge that "the world" is interested in Anne Franks "sexual thoughts". This isn't about censoring the article, but ensuring it does not start drifting away from the weight of solid reliable sourcing. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that we should focus on solid RS, and use them to determine how much weight to give these details of Frank's relationships and the world's reaction to her sexual writings.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Let me be 100% clear: that is not what I am advocating. My !vote is below with explanation. Personally I do not think the world wants WP to write about the sexual thoughts of a 15-year-old girl - anyone who really wants to do that should just fuck off far, far away from WP. Frank is not notable for that (the information about the censorship of the diaries is relatively recent), and the article should address what is notable about her, given the policies of UNDUE, WEIGHT, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  It sounds like you are telling 15-year girls they should fuck off from WP, because surely they would want to write about the sexual thoughts of their peers. This does feel like censorship and sexist exclusion. Please be more mindful. The sexual entries have been censored since the publishing of the original diary, as the above source states. Her relationship with her best friend Jacqueline van Maarsen is notable. Van Maarsen has published several books about their friendship.[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Are you intending to twist every comment from people back into something that they have not even come close to suggesting? I have not said anything of the sort, and I think it disgusting that you are deliberately misinterpreting what I have written. You are getting extremely close to trolling with comments like this: it is certainly nothing to do with the question of the RfC. (And don't tell me to be more mindful when there is zero reason: next time there will be a blast of more industrial Anglo-Saxon added your way). No, this is not about censorship, it about balance and dealing with the WEIGHT of the reliable sources. I'm out, if you're going to try and bludgeon and troll everyone who comments for whatever reason you want to force this onto the article, it will be without me. My !vote still stands - and don't bother trying to twist my words again - I don't want to have to drag you to ANI for disruptive and tendentious comments. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW I agree with Kolya: the reliable sources that talk about the censorship almost universally describe what was actually censored. And Wikipedia is not censored, so we really ought to include that information as well. Considerations about whether "the world wants WP to write about the sexual thoughts of a 15-year-old girl" are completely irrelevant here: WP has written about things many people would consider far more offensive than anything we're discussing here, when the sources demand it. Loki (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  You really should read what people have written: I am not talking about censoring the article - far from it. I have !voted below to say that one sentence about the censorship of the book should be included, but the details of that censorship should be elsewhere. It's a question of the due weight to give the information in this article, and my !vote covers that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am frustrated but not surprised that pointing out microaggressions would be misinterpreted as "twisting" words and "trolling". Yes, we need to be careful with how we write about the underaged, but this is not exploitative writing; this is academic, and the pearl-clutchung in this discussion is unprofessional.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Take your frustrations elsewhere: you are twisting people's words in a highly inappropriate manner. I have had to pull you up on it for everything I've posted. There is absolutely no need for it, and it shows the desperation you are sinking to in not being able to address the points calmly and rationally without such underhand linguistic thuggery. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Please take this discussion to my talk page so I can defend myself against your false accusations without further derailing this discussion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to one; per Zero for 2. One academic reference to deal with the censorship, but nothing more or we breach UNDUE, WEIGHT, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• No to 1, Neutral for 2. No to 1 for obvious reasons, labeling her as LGBT is speculation and has no RS. I'm neutral on 2 and am fine with the vote going either way. If we do include it, I agree with SchroCat and Zero, as per above, the mention needs to be short, focusing on it being removed, and then included in a future version of the diary, and be based on a reliable source. We could just rework the current sentence in the "unabridged" version to flow better and include it there. Anne is not notable for being an LGBT Holocaust victim, so we don't need to include too much of a mention. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• No Not without reliable academic sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A range of reliable academic sources are given in this discussion and in the subsequent section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• No to both. Irrelevant, heavily undue, original research and POV pushing.--Darwinek (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• No to both - no RS to be found.--Moxy 🍁 23:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Moxy, I'm confused; I've pasted a large highlighted excerpt above and included more references in my comments (related to 2). Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If your talking about her mentioning her curiosity that was censored by her dad that would be fine...but to include just the oneside is not ok...we should mention Peter too.--Moxy 🍁 23:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I would be fine including Peter, and TBH kinda assumed that we would if 2 passed. Loki (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It would seem sensible to mention Peter as well. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) No to 1, clearly not backed up by RS. Neutral on 2; Zero and QueerFilmNerd above appear to have identified a workable solution if it is to be included at all. CThomas³ (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to both. Absolutely not. The interpretations today by many LGBT people who think there's an LGBT orientation lurking under everyone's bed is absurd -- and particularly offensive to me as a Lesbian who fought in the trenches of the Gay rights movement, marched for our rights, was physically attacked for being an out Lesbian, and was denied a security clearance and important job because I had the audacity to tell the truth that I was a homosexual. The "woke" hets who think they're doing us favors should find something else to label "queer" and fantasize over. Anne Frank was not bisexual, for F's sake. She was a girl hiding in an attic and living in fear of Nazis. She could not make friends. She could not hang out with other girls her age. She craved freedom and friendship. Her diary was an escape from the shit and horror that surrounded her. Perverse minds invent perverse conclusions.
  Adding to comment: If any sources are to be used regarding allegations about Anne Frank's sexual orientation, they should strictly be academic. Opinion journalism, advocacy journalism, entertainment media, personal essays, op-eds, any and all non-academic sources are not good enough in regards to this subject. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC); edited Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to both, per Darwinek. Lectonar (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• No to bullet (1), Yes to bullet (2). Many of the objections to (2) above do not appear based in policy. If reliable sources are talking about these issues, we need to too. And RS are talking about these issues. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Probably not to 1, Yes to 2. I'm surprised at how short the currently-titled "Unabridged version" section is in general – I'd merge the last two paragraphs of the "Publication" section into it and rename it. As for her experiences of same-sex attraction in particular, they're discussed by plenty of sources, and occasionally cited among reasons the book was banned in some schools in the United States. I'd probably have a line about the partial restoration of content in 1986 (or else just combine all the new material that has come to light over the years since the dates are less important) and mention it there, along with other things. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• No to 1. Neutral on 2. 2 should depend on due weight, and I haven't looked into the sources sufficiently to say that.--MattMauler (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 2 - Not only is there nothing wrong with discussing a subject's sexuality, but given the historical censorship and whitewashing of the topic, it makes for a convincing case that it's all the more important for Wikipedia to include it. I find the vehement condemnations above a bit odd, to say the least, one user calls it "bullshit" and another calls it a conclusion drawn by "perverse minds", when we're literally talking about her own words about herself, which can hardly get any more explicit, hence the reason they have been censored throughout history. As is demonstrated above this topic is well-documented in reliable sources. Personal opinions should be kept out of it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You say "given the historical censorship and whitewashing of the topic, it makes for a convincing case that it's all the more important for Wikipedia to include it". Isn't that an activist position you're taking? Wouldn't that be the righting of what you perceive as a "great wrong"? Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's a literal fact. There are two editions of the diary, one of which is the heavily-censored first edition. The complete and unabridged was only published in the 80s and 90s, and there have been numerous attempts to ban the unabridged one. This is literally common knowledge-level information we're talking about, but if you really need to be convinced, you can literally just google it. God, we're literally talking about factual, easily-verifiable information here. This isn't some twisted culture war conspiracy to reinterpret historical figures. It's astounding that people who have clearly not even looked into the content question are acting like this is some activist crusade. This is censored information. Wikipedia is not censored. Resisting the urge to censor controversial information is not "righting a great wrong", it's our baseline. If you have a problem with that, too bad! Anne Frank talked about being attracted to women in Diary of a Young Girl. I'm sorry if this is shocking, upsetting, breaking news to you, but don't lose your mind at people for simply discussing it. Good grief. What we have is objective content that is easily-verifiable and heavily covered in reliable sources. Yet people are getting all emotional and making false statements, literally jumping to conclusions or lying so that it doesn't get included. If that's not censorship in action, I don't know what it is. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Anne Frank talked about being attracted to women in Diary of a Young Girl" - actually she once talked about going into ecstasy about statues and pictures of women's bodies and spoke once of wanting to touch the breats of a friend (as a sign of friendship and trust). Let me confess something, I go into ecstasy at some of Michaelangelo's male figures, I was almost literally breathless when I saw David "in the flesh" - as was my then girlfriend, who was convinced he was breathing. Needless to say none of this means that I have a general sexual attraction to men, to adolescent boys, nor to marble! It is because the statue itself is stunningly beautiful and charged with vitality and eroticism. I currently live in a part of the world where young women (under 20-ish), happily cuddle, walk arm-in-arm, kiss in public (mouth to mouth but not usually lingering). They behave like that partly in what is probably a transitional phase towards adult heterosexual behaviour, but also because no one bats an eyelid in this country about young women doing this - no one, including the girls themselves, assumes that the behaviour is 'lesbian' or even meaningfully 'sexual'. I am also old enough to remember some girls at my school in the UK behaving similarly, because in those times such behaviour was tolerated precisely because it was seen as a normal manifestation of affection for girls. Our own times are less innocent and tend to want to immediately characterise such behaviour. Pincrete (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• No to both it is not Wikipedia's place to indulge in speculation regarding the sexuality of a teenage girl who was killed during the Holocaust some 75 years ago. We simply don't know and neither do any of the people who have produced the supposedly reliable sources that are engaging in this inappropriate speculation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh my god, Lep, the source is literally her own words in her own diary. It's not some vague, SJW interpretation about some "secret" writings. They're literally just covering what she said in the diary. I don't know if you know this, but it's out there, you can buy it. Hell, you can find it posted online for free. I won't link to it because of copyright but literally Google it and then Ctrl+F the passage. It ain't a secret. The question is whether to include her own statements about her sexuality, which are easily verifiable and covered by a wide range of reliable sources. If you actually have an argument, that's great, but don't post a statement that makes it painfully obvious that you literally didn't look into this at all. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've read her diary. In fact, I remember the passages in question. I also read the above conversation. In fact, I am expressing agreement with points that have been made by several users above. Suffice it to say that what she describes is the normal curiosity experienced by many children of her age. That may be considered salacious fodder on some websites, but it is not something to cover on Wikipedia. You are free to disagree with me, but please don't assume that my opinion is founded on ignorance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Many otherwise straight women question their sexuality as a teenager [and thus we shouldn't rely on the primary source to describe her as bisexual until reliable secondary sources have described her as such]" is a perfectly colorable argument for voting no on 1. But it's not an argument at all for voting no on 2, especially since we have many reliable secondary sources that describe the censorship of the diary, including the passages describing attraction to her female friend. Loki (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The article already says "An unabridged edition of Anne Frank's work was published in 1995.[106] This version included Anne's description of her exploration of her own genitalia and her puzzlement regarding sex and childbirth, a passage that had previously been edited out by Otto Frank" 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 are seeing calls to include her words about same-sex attraction but not 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The focus is on same-sex attraction because you initiated a discussion about her same-sex attraction here[12] at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_(PinkNews). If you would like us to discuss the inclusion of her words about prostitution, farting, or anatomy details, please initiate a new discussion here. But 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.[13] 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) 06:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion about her same-sex attraction because that's what has been stuffed into this article and then removed a dozen times. I am asking you why you personally are pushing to add the bit about the same-sex attraction and not the bits about prostitution, farting, or anatomy details. The above makes it sound like "Kolya Butternut wants to include it because Guy Macon objected to previous attempts to include it." That can't be your meaning, but I am at a loss as to how you and the other editors who tried to add it decided what bits to fight over adding and what bits to ignore. The only reason I can think of is a coatrack for the (also added and removed multiple times) claim that Anne Frank was bisexual. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty close; I am fighting to include it because I have seen you fight to exclude it without basis in policy. I did not know the past editing history nor have I ever edited this article. I hate censorship. I'm not fighting to include the other bits because that's not the subject of the discussion which you initiated, and for the reasons I just stated which you continue to ignore. You should focus less on preconceived motivations and more on policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The good news is that "to annoy Guy Macon" is not a valid criteria for adding material. It is just a happy side effect. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And there it is; you betray a lack of empathy when you focus on yourself and seemingly cannot appreciate other perspectives and ideas. That is to say, this isn't about you, and you (and we all) need to use our imaginations to consider the thoughts of those we're engaging with or else the discussion will be as fruitless as this one began. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to both -- per the very good arguments made above. It is highly inappropriate discussing a dead child's sexuality. End of. Cassianto^Talk 07:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  

For the closer, I want to point out WP:NOTCENSORED when you evaluate this particular !vote. Loki (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never understood why this kind of appeal to the closer is necessary or helpful. Write your own !vote rationale or rebuttal explaining your interpretations of policy. Or just leave it be since this issue has already been talked to death. But responding directly to Cassianto's comment under the guise of talking to someone else is just plain passive-aggressive. It's tantamount to saying 'hey closer, ignore this person because of [x]' and such comments have a strong tendency to generate more heat than light. Just address your reply to Cassianto; the closer will still see it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The main reason I phrased it that way is that I'm annoyed that so many people are making arguments of "inappropriateness" when that's clearly against policy. Or in other words, yes, it was exactly "closer ignore this person because of [x]", because Wikipedia policy says pretty clearly that the closer should ignore this person because of [x].

I don't see what trying to argue with them directly would help: part of the reason for WP:NOTCENSORED is that decisions of what is appropriate or not are very subjective and so I would essentially be trying to convince Cassianto that their feelings are wrong, which sounds both impossible and like something I wouldn't want to bother with even if it was possible. (Though I'm sorry it came across as passive-aggressive. That honestly wasn't my intention at all.) Loki (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, given the choice of either adhering to a made up Wikipedia policy, or remaining decent and not speculating about a dead child's sexuality, based on an entry she made whilst in the most desperate and appalling situation imaginable, I'd happily take the latter every time. Take your policy and kindly do one. Best regards. Cassianto^Talk 23:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding an argument, I'm going to decline to respond, except to say that I think that being this sharply uncivil pretty clearly validates my decision not to argue with you directly. Loki (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, er...that was a response. And sickeningly, it speaks at volumes. Inferences, sadly, will be drawn. Cassianto^Talk 04:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, utterly hilarious that you drone on about NOTCENSORED, yet you want to censor me from the final count. Cassianto^Talk 23:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to both per many above. If people want to read the diary, well, they can go read the diary. The encyclopedic entry / BLP on Anne Frank need not contain every detail mentioned in the diary. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to 1, Yes to 2. Labelling Anne Frank as an LGBT figure based on extracts from her diary is definitely speculative at best, and so has no place here. However, given the fact that her diaries are so significant in understanding who she was, and that an entire section of the article is devoted to the diaries, it would be improper to not include relevant information about them purely on the basis that it regards sexuality. I think it's been conclusively shown that they were censored on the basis of sexuality (as mentioned in The Diary of a Young Girl#Bans). This is paired with the fact that this particular aspect of her diaries has received coverage in both academic sources (see Talk:Anne Frank#Academic sources on Frank and sexuality) and popular media (see ReconditeRodent's comment above). As a result, while I agree that open speculation around her own personal sexuality should not be included, ignoring this aspect of her diaries that has sparked notable discussion more recently would not do the topic justice. Sparkledriver (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No to 1, yes to 2. While some do label Frank as LGBT, it is not widely enough applied. However her writing on sexuality have received significant attention both due to the initial censorship and due to sexuality being an important aspect of a young person. --Astral Leap (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• No to both - She was a child & it's not a part of her notability. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• No to both - This doesn't rise to the level of importance to warrant inclusion. These are mere mentions in a diary. She is not known to have been a practicing homosexual, and it is doubtful, in my mind at least, that had she lived, these mere intimations would have blossomed into relationships with women. Wikipedia isn't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. We are not CENSORING anything in omitting this information. We are refraining from giving WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a minor point. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• No to both due to lack of reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Idealigic, for 2?? Did you see the sources section below, among other sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  Kolya Butternut, even though there are reliable sources, it is still unnecessary to include. Idealigic (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1 if attributed to reliable sources, Yes to 2. Censorship and erasure of LGBTQ sexualities, identities, and culture has gone on forever, and shows no sign of stopping.
  By any modern standard Frank would be labeled bi-curious, or lesbian-leaning. Instead we have to rely on (mostly non-LGBTQ) historians who are largely ignorant or even hostile to homosexuality to interpret Frank’s intentions. The bar is usually set high enough that a historic figure could never be seen as anything approaching not strait.
  A good article wouldn’t whitewash uncomfortable truths, and Wikipedia often excels at distilling hype into comprehensible facts. Just contextualize how modern historians faced with new content are re-evaluating Franks sexuality based on restored content. And absent first-hand knowledge beyond her writings we can probably consider her a Category:LGBT writer or similar. Thousands of LGBTQ students come out despite nearly everything in pop cultures being heteronormative, it’s rarer for that to happen pre-Stonewall (1969), let alone in the 1940s, unheard of really. When all else fails use direct quotes and let her speak for herself. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should be discussing this in the absence of the distinction between LGBTQ historians and non-LGBTQ historians. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. However LGBTQ researchers are less likely to be burdened by homophobic researcher bias, intentional or not. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• No to both - per WP:UNDUE, and it's certainly not relevant to what she's notable for. Just because content can be sourced and verified, doesn't mean it's suitable for inclusion. If she was a living teenager, we wouldn't even be having this conversation without an explicit and direct self-identification of her sexuality. Is it any wonder that LGBT youth have the highest rate of suicide attempts, when some people think it's OK to divulge their secret personal feelings and thoughts they intended to remain private. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This response does not appear to be based on Wikipedia policy. She's not a living person (sadly) and obviously her diary would never have been published in the way it was had she survived, so I find this an odd argument. More to the point, there is no requirement in Wikipedia policy to protect the privacy of a long dead person by not covering material that other public sources discuss. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

My response is obviously based in Wikipedia policy, as it clearly states per WP:UNDUE, not relevant to her notability, and our policy which states verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• No to both, per many reasons given above, including her age, lack of relevance to her notability, and WP:UNDUE. What might get mention in a full-length book, or specialized article dealing with a narrow topic, does not belong in a Wikipedia encyclopedia article summarizing her whole life. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• No to both entirely irrelevant to the subject and article ... good grief ... and block anyone who votes yes to discuss children's irrelevant sexuality! Anyone that messed up shouldn't be here! Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• No to both because this young adolescent girl never identified herself as lesbian, bi-sexual or bi-curious, so it is inappropriate and WP:UNDUE for us to insinuate her sexuality based on her private thoughts. Her private sexual thoughts should not be promoted on Wikipedia to synthesise a conclusion in the minds of our readers to suit an WP:AGENDA and WP:ACTIVISM.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• No to both: Armchair diagnoses of any kind in Wikipedia is original research. Insistence that this sort of content be placed on a well-known historical figure's Wikipedia biography is ADVOCACY. Normal Op (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Bullet 2 is not an "armchair diagnosis", it is content of the Diary as described in reliable secondary sources. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 2 I see that this has a brief mention in the NYT here and The Times here. I think a similarly short mention would be due and supported by these RS. The arguments around whether this is private info that is improper to share may hold under WP:BLP but Anne Frank isn't alive or recently deceased and it is verifiable information mentioned in RS. Also it is unclear if this a secret Anne didn't want included in her diaries since she wasn't the one who edited it out. Instead I think WP:NOTCENSORED would apply here. Rab V (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Several no !votes above have said that the information under discussion is not relevant to what she's notable for. This argument does not make sense to me. Let's look at the current article. I'll just take the first main paragraph. This tells the reader many things, including that (i) Frank was born at the Maingau Red Cross Clinic, (ii) that the family moved within Frankfurt in 1931, and (iii) that both Frankfurt family houses still exist. These three pieces of information are all not relevant to what she's notable for, but we include them anyway. Frank is clearly notable, ergo we have an article on her. Given we have an article on her, we include information about her, her diary and her legacy based on what reliable sources say. That information does not have to be relevant to what she's notable for. It's not relevant to what she's notable for that she was born in Maingau Red Cross Clinic; it's not relevant to what she's notable for that she wrote things in her diary about her sexual feelings that were removed on publication. Both are matters covered by RS that may be of value to the reader. Bondegezou (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Bondegezou, Anne preferred red sauce to brown on her cheese on toast - not notable. Anne was a fan of the Glenn Miller orchestra and preferred them over Ted Heath's troupe - not notable. Anne preferred to use a ball point pen when writing her letters and thought the fountain variety was massively overrated - not notable. The sexuality of a dead child who may've "identified" as anything but LGBT, the older she got? Definitely not notable. A line needs to be drawn. Cassianto^Talk 14:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Controversy over what motivated the removal of material about Anne's experiences of same-sex attraction from the published version of the Diary? Notable. (FTFY) Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Then go and start [[Homophobic conspiracy to erase any mention of Anne Frank's sexuality]] and leave this article to those who want to deal in fact and morality. I would expect to see your new article at AfD quicker than it takes to write it. Cassianto^Talk 15:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto, you are entirely correct that a line needs to be drawn. So, how do we draw that line? We look at reliable sources. Over a dozen citations have been offered in this discussion and in the next section. I think that warrants the article saying something: not much, perhaps just a sentence. (Consensus is clear that we're not interested in labelling Frank as bisexual or anything. We're talking about what she wrote and how that material was treated.) If there were as many reliable sources noting Frank's tastes in music, then I'd consider a sentence on that too. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Bondegezou, as with most diaries, things get started and then are ripped out. Should we be mentioning those things too? If I thought for a moment that this was even approaching something encyclopaedic, I would be championing a mention on it. But the cynic in me is thinking that this is less to do with a desire to add good, factual, encyclopaedic information to this important article, and more to do with a need to say that poor Anne Frank, not content with having to deal with the nazis, also had to deal with a homophobic cover up over some comments that she may've written about the time she had a daydream about another girl. Therefore, let's stamp [[Category:LGBT people in history]] and claim that she was just another victim of social injustice. This is not appropriate. Cassianto^Talk 15:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  The more ardently editors argue against inclusion the more it feels like censorship, which inspires the yes !voters to argue more ardently for inclusion, which inspires the no !voters to argue more ardently against WP:ADVOCACY, and the vicious circle continues. So let's focus on policy. WEIGHT is the only relevant policy which has been cited. The entry about touching breasts is notable for two reasons, because it is an entry which many sources describe as an important deletion, and it is notable because it is about one of the most important people in Anne's life: her best friend Jacqueline. This RfC has been focused on the article section about the expurgated text, so let's focus on how to describe the expurgated entries. I would suggest simply saying what the sources say: In the more prudish Dutch version, Frank's references to sex, menstruation, and "feeling her friend’s breasts" are left out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  All power to the Dutch version, I say. You may think it's "prudish" to discuss the sexual goings on of a pre-pubescent teenager, but personally I'd call it inappropriate. Cassianto^Talk 19:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto said, as with most diaries, things get started and then are ripped out. Should we be mentioning those things too? Yes if reliable sources talk about it; no, if they don't.

  the cynic in me: I suggest the cynic in you remembers WP:AGF. I presume all the editors in this discussion are motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia.

  I am not suggesting labelling Frank as LGBT or adding [[Category:LGBT people in history]]. I am suggesting a small amount of text discussing what she wrote and how it was cut. Let's work towards a sensible compromise instead of arguing against straw men positions.

  You may think it's "prudish" to discuss the sexual goings on of a pre-pubescent teenager, but personally I'd call it inappropriate. Wikipedia has a policy on this, WP:NOTCENSORED. I think we can write some text without being salacious. Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Bondegezou, as I've said elsewhere (and not just on this topic), I couldn't give a monkey's toss about a silly Wikipedia policy. It's a poxy website, that's all. This comes down to decency, and speculating about a dead 15-yr-old's sexuality just so she can be labelled as a victim of a "homophobic cover-up" and social injustice, which is what is being inferred, whilst she's not here to defend herself, is frankly disgusting. Cassianto^Talk 15:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Fortunately, we can presume that the person closing this RfC does care about Wikipedia policy. As I've said before, it would be useful if we could move beyond straw men positions. Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• No to 1. Some of 2, with due weight Clearly no RS for 1, and unacceptable WP:SYNTH to boot. Some mention of her same-sex attraction along with her opposite sex musings is a neutral. Accurate description of what was censored, all in proper context and without undue weight to any speculation as to her actual orientation. Definitely should not hijack the article or go on and on about it; her sexuality is part of who she was, but at most side discussion to her historical significance. Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Categorical no to 1. Cautious maybe to 2, with due weight and conditional on careful, neutral, factual phrasing Clearly no RS for 1, and pure WP:SYNTH. The subjects which Frank wrote about, even if some might be the trivia of female adolescence and the subjects which were deemed too 'personal' for Dutch taste initially are both inherently interesting. I agree with those who assert that we have absolutely no way of knowing whether her thoughts and deeds were standard teenage curiosity, including perhaps adolescent 'role-playing' and whether any of this material even hints at nascent 'same-sex attraction', to me it doesn't. There is neither any strong reason to suggest it does, nor more importantly, any body of RS that support such a conclusion. Whether noting the 'excisions' should be here or on the 'diary' psge is also an issue - however, since I don't know the choices, I leave that to editors here - while noting that Frank once having wanted to touch a friend's breasts - is hardly a life defining moment.Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC) (
• Addendum I've just re-read the RfC heading ("content regarding Anne's sexuality") and question 2 ("Anne’s exploration of her sexuality with her friend"). Unless my post above is not sufficiently clear - I strongly question whether we know that Anne WAS exploring her sexuality with her friend, rather than engaging in naive curiosity and strongly doubt whether it is meaningfully knowable what Anne's sexuality was - insofar as a 12-14 year old living cloistered in an annexe, has any formed sexuality. Only one source, AFAIK, refers to the single "breast and kiss" incident as a manifestation of "same-sex attraction", yet many editors above are treating 'attraction' as the only posssible motive Anne could have had. Most sources simply relate the diary entry neutrally without justifying or explaining it in any way. IF included, I strongly believe it should be treated in that way. IMO, it is as easy to conclude that the "breast and kiss" incident is a naive manifestation of her ignorance of all things homo-erotic, and of her generalised bodily/sexual curiosity, as it is to see it as a manifestation of homo-eroticism or attraction.Pincrete (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Context

I thought it would be good to visualise the topic of the RfC in context:

Since the 1980s and 90s, several sections of Anne’s diaries which were initially edited out have been revealed and included in new editions. These contain passages relating to her sexuality, experiences of same-sex attraction, exploration of her genitalia, and her thoughts on menstruation. Following the conclusion of an ownership dispute in 2001, new editions have also incorporated pages removed by Otto Frank prior to publication which contain critical remarks about her parents' strained marriage and discuss her difficult relationship with her mother. Two additional pages which Anne had pasted over with brown paper were deciphered in 2018, and contained an attempt to explain sex education plus a handful of “dirty” jokes.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I wish we'd had this and the edit you made based on it before the RfC started, since it makes it clear that the only difference between the two versions is the phrase "experiences of same-sex attraction" in a paragraph about the censorship. Loki (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, people have interpreted the topic of the RfC in very different ways. It might be worthwhile to put forward a more specific and contextualised proposal, especially now that there's been much more discussion of sources. I'd probably give everyone a chance to recover first and see how important it seems in a month or so. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Unlike her exploration of her genitalia, and her thoughts on menstruation, there is zero evidence 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) 19:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, the conversation around point 2 is not surrounding Frank herself; rather, it's about her diaries. Whether or not we can discern if she was LGBT or not herself is mostly irrelevant when considering point 2. It's indisputable that, whether or not she was or would have turned out to be LGBT, in the censorship of her diaries certain sections were treated as such. The diaries were censored, due to the perception that they contained homoerotic material. Whether or not these experiences are typical or not really does not mean much, because they were treated as abnormal by editors.

For example, see Waaldijk (1993, doi:10.1016/0277-5395(93)90022-2, p331) who points out that "An important deletion in the Dutch Version C concerns the entry describing Anne’s curiosity about the body of her best friend Jacqueline: I asked Jacque whether as a proof of our friendship we might feel one another’s breasts. Jacque refused. I also had a terrible desire to kiss Jacque and that I did. I go into extasies every time I see the naked figure of a woman, such as Venus in the Springer History of Art, for example. It strikes me sometimes as so wonderful and exquisite that I have difficulty not letting the tears roll down my cheeks. If only I had a girlfriend!"

Waaldijk paints it as 'curiosity about the body of her best friend', as you have done. Nevertheless, it was excluded from publication in some editions for the reason that it was perceived to have been homoerotic. I understand why a claim that she was bisexual would be controversial, but I can't see the controversy in pointing out that the diaries have been censored on the basis of homoerotic content. It is neither improper nor false to make a claim about the way in which the diaries have been treated, particularly in an article about someone whose historical notability comes from her diaries. Sparkledriver (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Immediately after the quote, Waaldijk writes, "In the Dutch version, the references to feeling her friend’s breasts and the kiss are left out". We can use this objective description of the text rather than the characterization. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, it was excluded from publication in some editions for the reason that it was perceived to have been homoerotic., well yes, maybe. Or equally plausibly because it was erotic and Frank was somewhere between 12 and 15 at the time. Is anyone really certain that an early adolescent Frank getting ecstatic about the body of David, or for that matter any semi-clad male pin-up would have been acceptable reading matter to broad swathes of Dutch society, either then or even now. Pincrete (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary to 24 Aug

It can be a while to wait for someone to come close an RfC! In case useful, I offer the following observations.

1 I count 33 opposing, 1 maybe (Loki) and 1 (qualified) support (Gleeanon409). I suggest WP:SNOW applies and we can take this to be rejected without waiting for the RfC to be closed.

2 I count 21 opposing (Springee; Lindenfall; Guy Macon; JzG; HiLo48; Hemiauchenia; Darwinek; Moxy; Pyxis Solitary; Lectonar; Lepricavark; Cassianto; Mr Ernie; GoodDay; Bus stop; Idealigic; Isaidnoway; Jayjg; Nfitz; Literaturegeek; Normal Op), 10 clearly supporting (Newimpartial; Loki; Kolya Butternut; Bondegezou (me); ReconditeRodent; Swarm; Sparkledriver; Astral Leap; Gleeanon409; Rab V) + 4 cautiously supporting something carefully worded (Zero0000; SchroCat; Montanabw; Pincrete). 3 are explicitly neutral (MattMauler; Cthomas3; QueerFilmNerd). This is not a vote, of course, and some editors have given lengthy explanations for their positions, while others have been very brief. We may have to wait for an RfC closer to help us out of this stalemate. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And so many of the 21 opposing votes are misinterpreting the question as a proposal to characterize her thoughts as homosexual rather than making objective descriptions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Resolved

 – Edits removed from public view

We are going to have to review the additions by User:Factsofhistory and we are getting copyright violation warnings for their edits. after looking at just 3 edits I have reverted to before all plagiarism.--Moxy 🍁 12:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Despite the anxiety about her mother’s relatives who were still in Germany, Anne enjoyed a sheltered childhood. She played with her friends and spent her holidays with her family, visiting relatives in Switzerland or travelling to the seaside. In the winter she loved to ice-skate ...from https://www.annefrank.ch/en/family/anne-frank

In the spring of 1942, Otto decided to set up a hiding place in an empty part of his business premises...from https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/main-characters/otto-frank/

--Moxy 🍁 12:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

anne frank

Could i say something here where here does it say anne frank was a girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.213.177.19 (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A combination of the name Anne, and the use of the pronoun "she" in the second sentence make it pretty clear to me. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Anne Frank lacht naar de schoolfotograaf.jpg (discussion)
• Diary of Anne Frank 28 sep 1942.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Of Jewish heritage"

I think the article should be edited to say "Jewish diarist" instead of diarist of Jewish heritage", obviously she is of Jewish heritage as well as ethnically Jewish, but I still believe that it needs to be edited as she was very vocal about celebrating being Jewish and it should reflect as such in the article. Batsquatch (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

please let me edit!!! 204.83.240.118 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Please provide the exact text you would like to add, remove or change as well as sourcing before requesting an edit. If you think the page protection should be removed you can request this at WP:RFPP. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Anne's full name

Annae's registration card reads "FRANK, Annelies Marie Sara", parents "Frank, Otto Heinr.Isra." (Heinrich Israel?) and "Holländer, Edith Sara", sister "Frank, Margot Betti Sara". Why is the "Sara" bit omitted in Wikipedia and in many other sources? It was part of the name, wasn't it? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/registration-cards-dutch-jews-display-holocaust-museum-amsterdam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.227.49.192 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Diary of Anne Frank 28 sep 1942.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Anne Frank's legacy and the reception amongst POC in the West.

A lot of POC in the West are deeply unhappy with the fact Anne Frank seems to be excessively focused on at the expense of learning about non-European victims of colonialism + slavery. They view the focus on Anne Frank as a form of White Supremacy in action (something I personally find uncomfortable, as Frank was persecuted by people who specifically denied she was "white") - that the most discussed victim of violent discrimination was a white (Jewish) girl. I think this is a narrative that should be touched upon in the article. LINKS: [14] [15] --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:B10F:7B28:18B3:A861 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What's POC? HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Person of color. I don't see a lot of weight given to this aspect of Anne Frank in reliable (even scholarly) sources about her, of which there many. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems a very American term. Hardly ever used in my country, and I suspect in many other places. To try to impose the racial obsessions of one western country on this person is quite inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. Reviewing this version:

• There is considerable MOS:SANDWICHing
• There are HarvRef errors indicating sources that aren't used and citations needing cleanup;
• There are duplicate links; you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review.
• See Category:Harv_and_Sfn_template_errors to install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to view errors.
• Citation cleanup needs, example Lindwer 1988, p. 27-29. --> Lindwer 1988, pp. 27–29. (pp. and WP:ENDASH on page range)
• Add the parameter |trans-title= on non-English source titles, eg: Bjørhovde, Hilde (7 May 2015). "– Musikk uten melodikk er som et språk uten adjektiver". Aftenposten. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 12 May 2020.
• MOS:ACCIM, images should not be at the bottom of sections
• The Legacy section needs considerable cleanup. There are short choppy one-sentence paras, WP:PROSELINE, sentences and paragraphs starting with numbers, dab links in the text ( over 270 schools named after Anne Frank worldwide), and a growing list of trivia.

Hopefully someone will engage to restore this article to FA status so a Featured article review can be avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I did some corrections and improvement, but left ref and link errors. Chhandama (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit couldn't be made because this page is locked from editing

Hello, I tried to add a simple Wikilink to this article (to Wilhelm van Maaren) but could not do so because the article appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the subject of who betrayed the Frank family was revisited by the CBS News 60 Minutes program on January 16, 2022 Source 1--transcript Source 2--video 1 Source 3--video 2, and the name suggested as the likely real betrayer was given as Arnold van den Bergh. This information could also be used to update the Wilhelm van Maaren article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, why is the name of Anna "Ans" van Dijk also missing as one of those who has been proposed as the betrayer of the Frank family? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

“of Jewish heritage”

I think it’s redundant to say Anne Frank was “of Jewish heritage.” She was Jewish. This is supported by Encyclopedia Britannica. Regardless of whether she was observant, Judaism is an ethnoreligion. For example, Jerry Coyne is described as a secular Jew despite being a staunch anti-theist. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Typo where March is written Mach

I don't have editing writes to correct it myself. In the third paragraph

Later research has suggested they died in February or early Mach.

I think Mach should be March

 Done Thanks for catching that. Popcornfud (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference articles

I would like to read the articles used when writing this entry but am not able to without first signing up at the site. How can you use references like that. Very unprofessional. 2600:1700:8831:E900:8138:64F0:5DAE:A535 (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Signing up at what site? You object to Wikipedians using sources from websites that require registration? Sorry, but there is no reason to think that we wouldn't do that--let alone use sources like books. You can consider going to your local public library for help with accessing sources. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

New investigation

Someone could add that scholars replied to the investigation by saying the evidence was thin. Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/books/anne-frank-betrayal-arnold-van-den-bergh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.161.88 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Arnold van den Bergh or anyone else betrayed Anne Frank. The truth is simply that the Germans had become much better at finding secret hiding places by 1944. (86.150.124.21 (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC))

You're dismissing something, citing a lack of evidence, while stating something subjective that can never be substantiated. Seasider53 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

According to evidences and author Rosemary Sullivan’s and filmmaker Thijs Bayens’ investigation led them to believe Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh gave the Frank family’s whereabouts to the Nazis, in order to save his own family from the concentration camps.2001:56A:F0E5:1A00:ECF3:D85A:880C:15DD (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The theory about Van den Bergh has already been debunked: https://www.australianjewishnews.com/frank-betrayer-theory-slammed/ (86.149.119.168 (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC))

You dismiss this too easily, based on only one article. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple articles debunking the theory. (86.149.119.168 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC))

Then cite them. I know there are problems; Trouw and other papers reported on them. But you need more evidence than one article. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Should anyone have been deceived by positive reviews of the book: the only hard evidence in it consists of that single anonymous postwar accusation. The rest is sheer speculation, the most implausible part of which is the assumption that there would have been lists of hiding Jews.--MWAK (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Right now I think it is properly covered in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Right now, the criticism of the investigation and the resulting book is given as a kind of afterthought, after a fairly extensive description of the supposed findings. At the very least, it should be mentioned what the conclusion is based on (a single anonymous accusation, and on the entirely unsubstantiated assumption that Van den Bergh was in possession of lists of Jews in hiding), and that the chronology is dodgy (Van den Bergh was himself hiding from the Germans when he supposedly contacted them to betray the Franks and others). Right now, there is an implicit bias in favor of the new investigation and the criticism is mentioned but not explained, making it easy for an uninformed reader to dismiss it offhand. This is not balanced or intellectually honest. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I followed the discussion on Dutch TV. Bottom line: the only "evidence" is an anonymous letter received by Anne's father (which now only exists as a typewritten copy of the letter). The whole investigation is speculation about who had the knowledge, motive, opportunity, and contacts to reveal their hiding place. There is not a jot of real evidence, and the investigation does not pretend otherwise. This investigation=guessiology. If this were a trial, prosecution would drop the charges. The investigation found the most obvious suspect, but no indication that he actually committed the crime. According to the rules of a Police investigation, yes, he is the main suspect, but no evidence got uncovered. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Anne Frank was born on the 12th June 1929, not 1934. 2.97.82.147 (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing anywhere in the article it says she was born in 1934. Please clarify what change you are asking for. RudolfRed (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Heritage

She was a German dairist of Jewish heritage. 121.98.24.38 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Duly added. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Main photo of Anne

I think Anne's main photo should be changed to one of the two taken in May 1942. The one used from 1941 shows her at age 12, whereas the May 1942 one also shows her at 12, it is of higher quality and a month before she turned 13. The Anne Frank House uses these two photos more often so than the 1941 photo. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingtudorqueen (talk • contribs) 02:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Duly changed. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Liebau

Liebau is situated in Lower, not Upper Silesia. en:Lubawka] Lwh (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

confirmed and fixed — Jumbo T (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The google doodle.

There is supposed to be one honoring the 75th anniversary of her diary getting published and mass marketed. But, why is that doodle missing from the Google splash page itself?69.123.132.132 (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)User Cary

Google doodles are often particular to one country or region. Perhaps it appeared somewhere where you aren't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I have it now (Dutch). Dnlweijers (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

her final days

Janny and Lientje Brilleslijper were sisters who where with Anne and Margot when they died. They have written and spoken about their experiences. I think quotes from them should be included. 94.197.15.210 (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

also this article quotes Nanette Blitz-Konig as saying 'Anne never gave up hope. She was absolutely convinced she would survive.' I have yet to find extra verification of this. I do think that her bravery in the camp- despite being in despair when she thought her family were all dead- is in some ways more inspiring than her diary. She wrote the diary when she was living in fear and hiding, but not when she had experienced the horror of the concentration camps. Cynthia Ozick points out in her New Yorker essay 'The Misuse of Anne Frank's Diary' that optimistic lines from her diary are quoted, ignoring her disillusioned passages about the 'urge to rage, murder and kill' people have, and that she wrote the hopeful line about people being 'truly good at heart' before her worst experience of suffering. Eva Schloss also writes how how Anne might not have believed that line if she had been writing after the war. Irma Sonnenberg describes Anne as 'quiet' and says she wrote while she was in the camp. Sonnenberg also says 'Through all of that Anne stayed positive and kept everyone around her positive. Anne gave me hope because of how joyful she was. Even in her final days she remained positive.' Another source states 'When Anne was ill she would tell Irma that she wasn't very sick, trying to convince herself it were true. Anne mentioned her father and how she had always wanted to be an author.' In the biography The Hidden Life of Otto Frank by Carol Ann Lee, there is evidence that Otto was involved in shady dealings, and one of the theories is that one of the suspicious people he dealt with may have betrayed the Franks. The book names Tonny Ahlers as the betrayer. Members of the Ahlers family are quoted as agreeing that he was. Ahlers is mentioned as having blackmailed Otto Frank even after the war to hide the fact that his company had actually been doing business with the German army, a revelation that would have been quite embarrassing in the post war years as his daughter became famous.

Here are links for this stuff -

https://annefrankgiveshope.weebly.com/home/irma-sonnenberg-menkel?c=mkt_w_chnl:aff_geo:all_prtnr:sas_subprtnr:742098_camp:brand_adtype:txtlnk_ag:weebly_lptype:hp_var:358504&sscid=81k6_g64c

http://lifeofannefrankbiography.weebly.com/anne-franks-death.html?c=mkt_w_chnl%3Aaff_geo%3Aall_prtnr%3Asas_subprtnr%3A742098_camp%3Abrand_adtype%3Atxtlnk_ag%3Aweebly_lptype%3Ahp_var%3A358504&sscid=81k6_g6dw

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/10/06/who-owns-anne-frank?irclickid=RXZzTpQKAxyIUPI1PNzjt2CnUkDzB9T9HQjI3k0&irgwc=1&source=affiliate_impactpmx_12f6tote_desktop_adgoal%20GmbH&utm_source=impact-affiliate&utm_medium=123201&utm_campaign=impact&utm_content=Online%20Tracking%20Link&utm_brand=tny 188.29.134.80 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

sorry, when I wrote 'this article quotes Nanette Blitz-Konig' I didn't give a link - here's the link.- https://thevelvetchronicle.com/omitted-anne-frank-was-same-sex-attracted/

On the discussion of her same-sex attraction, I do think it should be pointed out in the editing the diary segment, (if it's true - I'm not sure and will bring proof links here later if I can find them) that Otto claimed to have edited the diary exactly as she wanted it, but this is probably not quite true. Anne did edit her diary, and it is understandable that Otto left out the passage about her attraction to Jacque, since it is one she would have wanted to be private. However, he did include bits about her relationship with Peter - arguably just as intimate, and much more extensive - that she didn't want included. Why - perhaps he thought it would mitigate the grimness to encourage people to buy and read it? There must be some academic stuff on this issue- I will try and find it. I also think that surely publishing the bit about her 'dirty jokes' is surely unnecessarily intrusive - has this not been commented on? Otto did conceal some passages she wanted private about her sexual awareness (as well as a passage where she wrote he did not love Edith romantically, which The Hidden Life of Otto Frank supports, but is disputed, and a passage where she called all Germans Nazis, understandably given the situation, but which he felt was unfair and didn't want published) and gave them to Cor Suijk, but they were later published after Otto's death. Again, I am surprised that passages that she probably didn't want published were published - has there not been any discussion on the ethics of posthumously publishing private passages of a 14-year-old's diary, whose tragic death means she cannot prevent this invasiveness? 188.29.134.80 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This might be of interest then. Lectonar (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A couple small edits (from a Holocaust educator/scholar)

Small suggestions: Change "2" to "II" in 2nd line of entry ("World War II")

2nd paragraph under "early life" section: This should be changed: "In 1933, after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party won the federal election and Hitler was appointed Chancellor of the Reich, "... it's chronologically incorrect: He was named Chancellor (Jan. 31, 1933) and then the Nazis won the March '33 elections, which they controlled Salahaldin (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Historian categories

These don't seem appropriate to me, and they're not explained in the article. Prezbo (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

Her death date was uncertain so it was between March 1st to 31st 2A02:C7F:7A5E:3400:A4E1:A5CA:E45C:800D (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The death is already marked as Circa (Uncertain). If you have a reliable source for this timeframe then please add it so that this can be added. Terasail^[✉️] 20:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

Ane frank had unfortunately died February 19th 9:01 AM 212.82.66.2 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Otto Frank tried to arrange for the family to emigrate to the United States—the only destination that seemed to him to be viable [16]—but Frank's application for a visa was never processed[17], because the U.S. consulate in Rotterdam was destroyed in the German bombing on 14 May 1940, resulting in the loss of all the paperwork there, including the family's visa application.[18] According to letters and documents stored in the archives of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, in 1941 Frank appealed to his friend from college, Nathan Straus Jr., the head of the federal Housing Authority, for assistance in bringing his family to the United States. [19] Straus and his wife, Helen, made several appeals on the Franks’ behalf to the Migration Department of the National Refugee Service and contacted the State Department for information and assistance. Despite these efforts, Frank was unable to obtain American visas before the family was forced to go into hiding. [20] 63.247.178.226 (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Death of Anne Frank

Under the area where it discusses her death, it currently states that she died in Auschwitz. That is incorrect. She died in Bergwn Belsen. 2600:1014:B078:3A9B:D936:DB6B:8CA:C9ED (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done This was an error introduced by me in a recent edit. Thanks for the correction. This has now been fixed. Popcornfud (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

Add wiki links to this text: "contemporary events in Sarajevo, Somalia and Rwanda" (Siege of Sarajevo, Somali Civil War, Rwandan genocide). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done GiovanniSidwell (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronounciation and ogg files

Should it be made clear that the ogg files at the moment that are used to help pronounciation are not of Frank's full name (as possibly suggested by the IPA preceeding them)? 90.241.197.102 (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Change her description

I don’t think it is appropriate to call her “German Diarist” Rather Jewish Diarist AlFarabi23 (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

From the lede: Annelies Marie Frank was a German-born Jewish girl....

From the short description: Jewish diarist and Holocaust victim

Doesn't seem inappropriate at all. DonQuixote (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

In the categories, she's listed under Dutch diarist, Jewish historian and German diarist. We can always add her to the Jewish diarist category as well, since she fits all three categories of diarists. DonQuixote (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Well...just checked, and there isn't a category for Jewish diarists as such, but all the other categories seem fine and is inclusive of her background, including that she held German citizenship. DonQuixote (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

what about just Diarist AlFarabi23 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? She's a German girl of Jewish descent who emigrated to the Netherlands. German diarist, Jewish historian, Dutch diarist, etc. pretty much covers her background. She's about as much German as Barbara Streisand, George Takei and Barack Obama are Americans. DonQuixote (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Calling her German gives the Germans credit. I think anyone who was Jewish during the Second World Ipso Facto lost their German citizenship. 2600:1009:B159:84C9:CC34:A09F:BAFD:D200 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep...gives the Germans credit for mass persecution and execution of their citizens because of bigotry. Can't whitewash history there. Besides, a random person on the internet probably doesn't speak for every Jewish person let alone German-born Jewish people. DonQuixote (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Change incorrect citation

In the section "Deportation and Life in Captivity," Nanette Blitz Konig is linked and said to have been told by Anne Frank that both of Anne's parents were dead. That is literally the complete opposite of what Konig said and what is linked. She very clearly says Anne thought her mother was still living and even wanted to reunite with her, and she did not know about her father. She certainly did not say Anne told her both were dead and that she was feeling suicidal. I don't even understand how you misquote someone so horrendously and let it fly. That might be what the other source from Pick-Goslar says but not Konig, and it's important to not misquote sources out of a misguided attempt at brevity. 2601:283:4B82:1B70:AD28:90B1:A4BD:6AD5 (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Anne Frank was not born in 1934. She was born in 1929. She was almost 16 when died. AndToto2 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The article gives her year of birth as 1929 several times. 1934 is the year her family moved from Frankfurt to Amsterdam, and the year she started school. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Defamation and libelous claim by Natasha Gerson stating source fraud by author Rosemary Sullivan

The administrator(s) of this page should be on notice that under the section SOURCE OF DISCOVERY, the paragraph about Natasha Gerson's research claiming Canadian Author, Rosemary Sullivan committed source fraud in her book The Betrayal of Anne Frank is false and libelous. Gerson's so-called research of the material in Sullivan's book is severely flawed and based on her own skewed opinions. Gerson has a history of having her various social media accounts flagged and removed because of such inflammatory attacks on anyone who she disagrees with. I was the Director of Investigation for this cold case investigation and know that the information and footnoted material Sullivan documented in her book was verified by my team of researchers and investigators. We have successfully debunked and rebutted her egregious allegations and posted them on the coldcasediary.com website for public viewing. Sullivan’s international award-winning book by Harper Collins is available worldwide in twenty different languages. If the administrators of this locked page are not going to remove this outrageous defamatory paragraph to remain, we would like to post our rebuttal. Vincent Pankoke, Director of Investigation, Anne Frank Cold Case Project. Vince Pankoke (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to bring this up with reputable secondary sources such as The Times or BBC News. Once they start talking about it, then we can start citing them. DonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have volumes of secondary sources of press articles about our investigation, but my concern deals specifically with the comment appearing on the page with a false claim of an award winning author falsifying sources. This libelous statement from someone who is a self-proclaimed clairvoyant should never appear without justification. Before legal action is initiated by the author and publisher, the paragraph should be deleted or at least allow us to publish our rebuttal. Vince Pankoke (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles do not have specific administrators or editors. If you are alleging that a statement is libelous, please see WP:LIBEL for how that should be handled. Also be aware of policy against making legal threats on Wikipedia(I have posted a notice of this on your user talk page). We cannot stop you from pursuing legal action, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, nor can you edit if you have a legal action underway. You can pursue your grievance in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia using Wikipedia processes, but not both at the same time. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If you carefully read my comment, I am not threatening legal action. I stated that the libelous statements should be removed or at least allow a rebuttal. Wether or not the author and publisher seek legal action is left to their discretion. I am neither the author or publisher. Vince Pankoke (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just referred this to the WP Libel for their review. Thank you for the suggestion. Vince Pankoke (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The content only states that these are Natasha Gerson findings, rather than staying them as fact. The BBC article is far stronger worded than what appears in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So will the administrators of the page allow us to post a rebuttal to what is there? The BBC article was a non-investigative piece, only repeating what she alleged. Vince Pankoke (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is only reporting what was alleged. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sourcing, if you wish to post a rebuttal find a reliable source that wants to report on it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Vincent Pankoke You are using the possibility of legal action as a cudgel to get your way in a discussion. That's not how things work here. As noted, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. Wikipedia does not provide equal time to all points of view and is not a place to merely provide viewpoints. If you have independent sources that discuss what you are alleging, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Vince Pankoke, please read this page: Wikipedia:No legal threats. Anyone can add anything to any Wikipedia page; there is no such thing as a page administrator.

To others, I've not looked through the page history to see when the Sullivan info was added, but a quick glance at it makes me think it's unnecessarily detailed for this overview biography article which should be written in Wikipedia:Summary style. If someone wishes to write a subarticle about Sullivan's book and then, in my view, that would be better than having it here. As such I proprose that the Sullivan info, which the NYT basically questioned, be either deleted or rewritten to only a sentence or so. Thoughts? Victoria (tk) 22:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that to mention the work at all the context of that word is needed, to not do so would be a potential false balance. Removing the mention entirely would solve the problem, this article doesn't need to mention every work about the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read my comment closely, I did not make a legal threat. I indicated that the author or publisher, of which I am neither, could take legal action. My cold case team provided much the information for Sullivan to use in her book. We meticulously reviewed all of the information and verified the sources. The statement that Sullivan falsified sources is incorrect and should be corrected or not included within the Anne Frank page. And I can provide a NY Times review of Sullivan's book which praises its content. The one you mention was written by a NY Times contributor that never reviewed Sullivan's book before criticizing it. Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, you might not have intended to make a legal threat, but you did use a threat of one as a motivation to amend this article. The intention might be different, but the result is the same.

Also, it would be more helpful if you provided citations to those independent secondary sources you claim to have access to rather than what you're doing now as there's no way to verify anything you say at this point. DonQuixote (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

For me to make a legal threat I would have to have a legal interest in the libelous comment. I am neither the author or publisher, so your logic is incorrect. Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to take you seriously as the Vince Pankoke of the 60 Minutes piece linked below when you deny using the threat of legal action as a motivation. Let me be a little bit more literal here: you used the threat of legal action from the author or publisher as a motivation to amend this article. Please stop doing that. DonQuixote (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I am signed in under my true name and I am willing to provide you with my personal cell phone number to speak with me directly to confirm my identity. Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Or email me through my website vincepankoke.com Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We're not fact checkers. Wikipedia relies on the fact checking teams of reputable secondary sources. That's why you need to provide citations of reputable secondary sources discussing this issue. DonQuixote (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I really think we shall let the Wikipedia Libel team handle this. Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Vince Pankoke the comment above is in fact a legal threat. Please stop. Given your comments here, referring to "us", "our", "we", there does seem to be some close involvement to the topic at hand - the Sullivan book. Please also refer our conflict of interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest information. In terms of the Sullivan book, in my view that section contains too much detail for this article and it would be better if the book had its own subarticle which this one can link to. Victoria (tk) 02:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As I stated in my earlier response, my investigative and research team were interviewed and provided Sullivan access to our material for use in her book. Her book follows the team through the journey of examining all existing theories of what caused the Annex raid, along with discovering new ones. This is my involvement in connection to the book. Vince Pankoke (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

after edit conflict: Thank you for replying. Yes, that does give you a conflict of interest, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I've just looked through the page history and see that the section in question hasn't existed for more than a few years and there's been edit warring in regards to the contents, so I believe a rewrite is needed. That requires digging into sources, reading, discussing etc., and then putting in a new version. Because Wikipedia depends on (free) volunteer labor things don't always happen as expeditiously as some people would like. I'm interested in this page (which honestly needs some pruning), so will try to make some time to pull sources and read and then will propose some ideas here on the talk page when I can get to it - or someone else might get to it first. In the meantime, there's not much more to be done here. Victoria (tk) 02:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If you need any documented archive research documents related to the subject of the 4 August 1944 raid, feel free to reach out to me or the research department at the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. Vince Pankoke (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Another good source of information is the City Archive of Amsterdam, (Stadsarchief), to which we donated all of our investigative reports and work product. Vince Pankoke (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way. As it happens this is what we call a Wikipedia:Featured article which requires high quality scholarly sources. We are a tertiary source; don't use primary research and adhere strictly to secondary sources. In this case high quality ones. Scholarly ones. There isn't a paucity of information regarding Anne Frank, but of course it will take a bit of time to identify the highest quality scholarly sources, retrieve them, read, etc. Thanks again. Victoria (tk) 02:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the CBS News program research staff of 60 Minutes carefully reviewed our source information prior to their production of the segment dealing with our investigation which aired January 2022. Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to he's talking about: Investigating who betrayed Anne Frank and her family to the Nazis DonQuixote (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, you may not be aware that Sullivan's book is a NY Times Best Seller and won both the 2022 Non-fiction book of the year award in Poland and the 2023 Canadian True Crime Award. Here are a few more of her accolades:

• Winner of the Crime Writers of Canada Awards of Excellence 2023 for The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation
• Best Nonfiction Book of 2022 on Poland’s Major Book Review Site (granice.pl) for The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation
• Winner of the 2016 Plutarch Award, Biographers International Organization for Stalin’s Daughter: The Extraordinary and Tumultuous Life of Svetlana Alliluyeva
• The RBC Charles Taylor Prize for Non-Fiction for Stalin’s Daughter, 2016.
• The BC National Non-Fiction Prize for Stalin’s Daughter, 2016.
• Winner of the 2015 Hilary Weston Writers’ Trust Prize for Non-fiction for Stalin’s Daughter
• Finalist for the American PEN /Bograd Weld Award for Biography for Stalin’s Daughter, 2016.
• Finalist for the National Books Critics Circle Award for Stalin’s Daughter, 2016.
• Officer of the Order of Canada, conferred by the Governor General of Canada, 2012, for distinguished contribution to Canadian Arts and Culture for Stalin’s Daughter
• Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, 2012.
• The Lorne Pierce Medal for Major Contribution to Canadian Literature, the Royal Society of Canada, 2008.
• The Canadian Society for YadVashem Award in Holocaust History, the Helen and Stan Vine Annual Canadian Jewish Book Awards for Villa Air-Bel: World War II, Escape, and a House in Marseille 2007.
• The Different Drummer Independent Bookseller’s Award for the best book of Non-Fiction in 2006 for Villa Air-Bel: World War II, Escape, and a House in Marseille 2007.
• Governor General’s Award for Non-fiction for Shadow Maker: The Life of Gwendolyn MacEwen, 1995.
• Canadian Authors’ Association Prize for Non-fiction for Shadow Maker, 1996.
• University of British Columbia President’s Medal for Canadian Biography for Shadow Maker, 1996.
• City of Toronto Book Prize for Shadow Maker, 1996.
• Short-listed for Ontario Trillium Prize for Shadow Maker, 1996.
• Short-listed for Governor General’s Award for Non-fiction,for By Heart: Elizabeth Smart/ A Life, 1991.
• Gerald Lampert Memorial Award: best first book of poetry published in Canada in 1986 (League of Canadian Poets) for The Space A Name Makes.
• Western Journalism Award: First Prize: Category: Travel, “Egypt,” Border Crossings, Winter 1997, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 2–38.
• Nomination for a National Magazine Award for poetry, 1989, “Life Sentence,” Border Crossings, Vol. 7, No. 4, October 1988; Nomination for a National Magazine Award for poetry, 2000, “Granada Notebook,” Border Crossings, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1999.
• 1986 Silver Medal, National Magazine Award for “Muse in a Female Ghetto: A Portrait of Elizabeth Smart,” This Magazine, vol. 20, No. 3, August/September 1986, pp. 22–25.

Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. Off the top of my head, see Roots: The Saga of an American Family, an award winning historical novel that had its own controversies. That is, winning awards don't mean much when there's some controversy. We need other secondary sources rebutting it. DonQuixote (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I find it interesting how you are more concerned about someone trying to correct a "wrong" than concentrating on the "wrong" itself. Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, from above, We're not fact checkers. Wikipedia relies on the fact checking teams of reputable secondary sources. That's why you need to provide citations of reputable secondary sources discussing this issue. DonQuixote (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

And that was done through an investigation that lasted five years and is well documented in Sullivan's book. Vince Pankoke (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The CBs article doesn't mention any of the criticism, so it doesn't move the conversation forward. Either the book and the controversy over it are mentioned, or the book isn't mentioned. As was said above maybe an article about the book that can put it in its context is a better answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not follow the dispute, but what I learned from Dutch media is: the "smoking gun" is an anonymous letter. That letter is lost, it only exists as a typewriter transcript (probably done by Anne's father). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

During my 60 Minutes interview I confirmed to CBS correspondent Jon Wertheim that there wasn't a smoking gun, only strong circumstantial evidence along with a copy of the anonymous note typed by Otto Frank that was forensically confirmed by a typeface expert. The dispute stems from a posting on the page that a Dutch researcher claimed that author, Rosemary Sullivan, committed source fraud. Vince Pankoke (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The mainstream view in the Netherlands seems to be that Anne and her family were accidentally discovered during an investigation about something else (stamps fraud). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There are many theories, of which we investigated more than 30. The one you speak of was put forth by one of the Anne Frank House researchers, but seems improbable based on the evidence we uncovered including statements from witnesses (the helpers) and the SD man who lead the raid, Karl Silberbauer. Sullivan documented this within the theories she wrote about in here book. 99.159.253.226 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Again: I never dived deep into this matter. I only say what the message of the Dutch mainstream media is. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The researcher who developed this theory is a friend of mine, and only presented it as a possible cause of the raid. 99.159.253.226 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, for Silberbauer it was one of hundreds if not thousands of similar actions. He had no reason to remember it particularly well. Hint: Anne was not famous before the end of the war. Anyway, SD was more like intelligence (think AIVD) than law enforcement (think FBI). So, even if he told them he remembers it, that could either be a false memory or a bald-faced lie. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sentence in leading paragraph describes hiding place as "attic"

"She is a celebrated diarist who described everyday life from her family hiding place in an Amsterdam attic." I think this adds to the misconception that they lived in an actual attic, which is not true. It was a multiple-story, multiple room space at the rear of an office building, which also happened to include two attics.

Would it be better to reword this like so?: "She is a celebrated diarist who described everyday life from her family hiding place in an annex of an Amsterdam office building." Or if that's too lengthy, perhaps more simply "...hiding place in an Amsterdam annex"? Airgum (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a little bit of both, really. The ground floor of the annex was still used by the business, so what we're talking about really are "the upper floors of the annex, including the attic." I think the word "attic" is commonly used in English because the attic of the annex features prominently in her diary, and lends itself to the visual concept of "hiding."

The article itself goes into detail about the Achterhuis and describes it correctly as an "annex," so while I agree that "annex" is probably the better word, the use of "attic" in the lede (meant to be a summary) is consistent with how the living situation is colloquially described in English. But I don't see this topic in the talk page archives, which was surprising. — Matuko (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"the two female secretaries"

"Arrest" paragraph change 'the two female secretaries' --> Miep and Bep. Reason: 'the two female secretaries' dismissive of / diminishing their roles. Miep was an office head balancing books, running the office, and soon to start signing checks, on top of everything else she did. By 1944 she was not just a secretary. 38.140.97.202 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

There is an error under legacy: "A daycare centre named for Anne Frank in Tangerhütte, Germany since 1970 was renamed in 2023 at the request of parents."

The name change did not go through and the name has stayed the same. The information here is wrong.

Sources:

German sources (plenty if you google "Anne Frank + Tangerhütte)

https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen-anhalt/stendal/stendal/kita-anne-frank-keine-umbenennung-tangerhuette-100.html

https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2023-11/tangerhuette-kita-anne-frank-umbenennung

English source:

https://aussiedlerbote.de/en/anne-frank-remains-namesake-for-daycare-center-in-tangerhutte/ MagikarpRevelation (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Updated article using these sources. — Jumbo T (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2024

In the Legacy section of this article, I suggest adding a reference to another influential work of art which is inspired by Anne Frank.

Please change "These include The Anne Frank Ballet by Adam Darius, first performed in 1959, and the choral works Annelies (2005) and The Beauty That Still Remains by Marcus Paus (2015)." to "These include The Anne Frank Ballet by Adam Darius, first performed in 1959, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (1998) by Neutral Milk Hotel, the choral works Annelies (2005), and The Beauty That Still Remains by Marcus Paus (2015)."

Please note that there are other footnotes in this sentence which should remain in the new version of this sentence. Adamabaum (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It seems that the citation is inside a citation, could you fix it and then put the proposed edit back here? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

References