Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Anee Frank an undeniable girl

Unsorted Discussion and Minor Issues

I read somewhere (the book actually I believe) that her father did not originally want to publish the diary and was later motivated to do so by others. If someone can find any truth/sources to that I think the statement "Convinced that it was a unique record he took action to have it published." could use a little tweaking. I'm not the man for the job sorry - anon

---

I've removed the David Irving entry under 'references.' I know that if I justify this by saying that 'in my opinion holocaust deniers don't deserve a mention here', there will be endless numbers of protestors saying: well, that's your opinion; in my opionion he's just fine there. That's a major weakness of Wikipedia, and it crops up everywhere where value judgements - as opposed to purely technical/scientific/factual issues - need to be defended: claiming personal opinion as the final arbiter. I know also that someone will reverse it. And then I'll reverse that, and so on. I'm quite happy to have a look at the arbitration procedures on Wikipedia, and defend my decision at the 'next level' up. The trouble with this 'in-my-opinion'-business is that the person doing the opining remains anonymous; hence the rest of the community cannot form a judgement on the other aspects of this 'in-my-opinion': how much authority, knowledge, veracity there is behind the 'in-my-opinion'. (If I said I'm one of 'them' myself, the Dutch Jews who hid during the war, would that help?) (Ik zou dit ook in het Nederlands kunnen zeggen, en mischien zijn er ook nog eens andere joodse overlevenden die hier iets over zouden willen bijdragen.. Hun opinie zou ik graag horen.) I feel that in the weighing of the different opinions of what should and what should not go into this article, the voices of those involved, the Dutch Jewish survivors, (yes, we still exist) deserve an added authority.

The other thing that bothers me about this article - about most Wikipedia articles - is the link-overkill. 'Façade' and 'dentist' and all the rest just don't need to be linked - it diffuses the reader's attention; serves no purpose.

current news: Op zaterdag 9 juli wordt op het Merwedeplein een monument onthuld ter nagedachtenis aan Anne Frank. Van 1933 tot 1942 woonde Anne op het Merwedeplein. In het plantsoen waar haar bronzen beeltenis wordt geplaatst, liggen talloze voetstappen van haar.

Programma:

17.00 uur: ontvangst en welkomstwoord door stadsdeelvoorzitter Erik Koldenhof 17.05 uur: toespraak door Jacqueline van Maarsen, jeugdvriendin van Anne 17.15 uur: bijdrage van een islamitische en een joodse student in het kader van het project Tweede Wereldoorlog in perspectief* 17.25 uur: toelichting door initiatiefnemer Gert-Jan Jimmink 17.30 uur: onthulling van het beeld door burgemeester Job Cohen

Het officiele gedeelte van het programma wordt muzikaal omlijst door celliste Saskia Bergen-Boon, lid van het Koninklijk Concertgebouworkest. Aansluitend is er een feestelijke receptie met traditionele klezmermuziek.

ifs-ffm

Only Anne Frank has diary excerpts that show true proof that the experiences of her during the holocaust. 72.235.45.132

Hi, When you get right down to it, Wikipedia is all about people's opinions and their interpretations of existing guidelines even though the process should be more scientific. The articles are being written by people rather than robots, so the process is sure to have its flaws. The rationale for including reference to Holocaust deniers is simply to give "both sides of the story". I put the original Irving quote in, and I think it's relevant, as well as satisfying the Wikipedia convention of offering criticism where it exists. The fact is that Frank's diary is considered a forgery by some people, and has attracted criticism by some groups since it was published. The overall article addresses these opinions while also offering substantial information about how those opinions were refuted. For example the comments of the Anne Frank House and the Miep Gies quote. Those comments are meaningless in the article unless it also shows the type of negative comment that provoked these responses. We need to know why Otto Frank took people to court, so that he does not look like he was overreacting. We need to know why the deniers are dangerous so that we can oppose them, why Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, so that we can continue to support that stance, and why organisations such as Anne Frank House are so uncompromising in the way they handle denials, so that we as a society do not allow the deniers to get the upper hand. We can only look at those "why"s if we also have access to what was said, and who said it. The article is heavily in support of the authenticity of the diary, and the deniers, who continue to deny despite the overwhelming evidence available to them, really do look foolish. The inclusion of references to Holocaust deniers does not undermine the legacy of Frank and her diary, nor it is included to be offensive to people like you who lived through those events and are obviously in a far better position to speak of them than people like me who were not even born when this happened. I am sure you have more knowledge of the subject than most people who didn't live through what you lived through, and I would not presume to even begin to comprehend what it must have been like to live through those events, but if you are assumed to have "added authority" does that not place you in the position to impose your own natural and understandable bias upon the article? I'm completely in favour of everybody having equal say in matters, and you do have as much right to delete text from an article as I have in including it in the first place, but I don't think anyone should presume to have the final say. When you say that people will replace what you've deleted, and then you will delete it again, you are suggesting that you will not be respecting other people's opinions, even while you are insisting that other people respect yours. I don't understand why you are criticising Wikipedia for accepting people's "value judgements" but then confidently assert that your own value judgements are more valid. If you truly want this process to consider "purely technical/scientific/factual issues" as you stated, then value judgements should be kept out of it, and as such, yours are no more valid than are mine. Or - mine are equally as valid as are yours.

I think it's important that people know that the story of the Holocaust and Anne Frank's role in documenting it, are not automatically accepted as fact by some people. It would be lovely if it was, but it's not, so I think we're better off dealing with it, than pretending it's not there. I think by reminding people that there are deniers is healthy in allowing people to make up their own minds, but I think it could also make people more mindful of the need to refute their comments when they come along. I'm sure the diary is going to provoke controversy for some people well into the future and I hope that future people are ready and able to defend the diary's veracity. I would hate to see people become complacent in the future because society becomes too efficient at suppressing negative viewpoints. In that sense the deniers are actually giving the diary more power, by protesting against it so stridently, but I would hate them to know that! As the Irving quote is included in the text of the article, it is important that it also be supported with a link or reference, so that anyone who wants to check that Irving has been quoted correctly, can do so. It does not mean his opinion is endorsed. My personal opinion is that he is a loathesome creature with a specific agenda, but I also believe that ignoring him is far more dangerous than allowing him a forum where he can bring ridicule upon himself. But this is just my opinion. I've given my opinion at some length, not with the intention of boring you, and I hope that has not been the result, but because I'm worried that if you feel that a link needs to be deleted, you might also be considering deleting sections of the article that I truly believe have value.

Reading your comments I feel that you are personally offended, and I regret that you feel that way. I worked extensively on this article along with another contributor, and believe me, we discussed at length what should and should not be included and never intended any reader to be affronted by what we wrote. It then went through a lengthy Featured Article process where it was approved only after reaching agreement. I personally believe that Wikipedia articles should adequately cover relevant differences of opinion and criticism, even where we as contributors and readers feel personally uncomfortable with the opinion being reported upon.

On the subject of the excessive links I agree. It's something that we just need to fix when it occurs but I don't think it's going to stop. Rossrs 08:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you for the long and detailed comment. Thank you also for the amount of work you have put into this article. Give me a couple of days to think this through. At heart of it there is, I think, (between us, but also on the Wikipedia in general) different ideas on objectivity, on professionalism, on authority (and/or the lack of it) and most especially on the way to proceed when there are obviously quite deep differences on moral/esthetic/political issues. What is new on this Wikipedia - compared say to all other reference works - is the idea that anyone who feels the urge can contribute on anything they like. That's both the appeal and also the obvious drawback. Especially on everything that is potentially controversial, there's the obvious tendency for the majority to have its way, for the popular tendency to predominate. Whereas in everything to do with scholarship, with ideas, it's quite the other way around: it's the rare qualities that count, the special insight, the special expertise, the wider vision. But that's very general. (I hasten to add that I'm not arrogating to myself the aforementioned qualities.) But it is true that I and many other survivors have the feeling that we've lost control over own history; that there's a kind of 'pop-lit' line which gets imposed on us from outside; that we are silenced by a popular cacophany in which everyone insists on his/her say - except that is, ourselves. Something like that. There seem to me to be limits to the 'ordinary' democratic way of doing things ('everyone has the right to his/her opinions') when we're talking about the Holocaust. People who are seriously trying to come to terms with it deserve our respect, those who are obviously prejudiced - e.g. the Irving bunch - do not. This seems to me to have a bearing on what does and what does not represent valid 'criticism' for article such as this one. The 'both sides of the story' criterion sounds plausible because it's a appeal to liberal values and every parent can imagine the scene of two kids both claiming that it was the other one who 'started it'. But we're talking about the victims of mass murder and about neo-nazi apologists; before a court of law they are, rightly, not dealt with equally. Scholarship, I argue, needs to follow the legal example, rather than that of the teacher before the class. But as I say: I want to think this through. (ifs-ffm)

Thank you. I'm glad you replied. I hope we have the opportunity to talk about this more, sometime in the future. Rossrs 09:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

---

Please add more to this if you can - there is much more to tell about Anne Frank.

---

What is the copyright situation of Anne Frank's diary? She died 1945, so the work should be in the PD in 2015, but is it currently already available on the Net, or is copying prosecuted? What about the translations? I did not find a copy on the Anne Frank homepage.

I remember a controversy about the authenticity of the diary. Not that I think the claims have any merit, but I think they should be covered here in sufficient detail, if only to dispel the myths. -- Eloq.

---

Don't understand the redirect??

---

Don't understand it either and would suggest switching it. -- Eloq.

---

I agree. The biographical article should be separate from the articles regarding the author's individual works. - HWR

There was never any serious controversy regarding the authenticity of the diary, BTW.

---

No, there was never serious controversy. In fact, there was a "definitive" version published (I'll look up the information tonight at home; it's mentioned in the introduction to mine) that included a comparison of the published version with the original manuscript. It was just edited by her father before it was published. He was the only family member to survive the camps. Most likely it just has some information he thought was too personal of something. ;-) --Dmerrill

---

If I remember well, the 'missing pages' of the diary suddenly popped up sometime during the mid-nineties. Someone had kept them and, I think, asked money for it, which aroused some public indignation. Otto Frank had supposedly taken out passages which were too painful for him; they included very harsh criticism by Anne of her parents. I haven't added this to the article because I am not completely sure how accurate this is.--TK

It is inaccurate. There were no missing pages and there was no money involved. The full story can be found in the reference cited in the article. Otto edited out a lot of stuff, both criticism of his wife and sexual content (for american readers). The original was always in the possession of the Anne Frank foundation, and it was published as part of the critical edition, with photographs of some selected pages. --AxelBoldt

Thanks Axel. I must have confused it with something else. --TK

---

Here's the story as I understand it: -HWR

In 1980, two German neo-Nazis, Ernst Romer and Edgar Gaiss, were tried in Hamburg for claiming the diary was a forgery. They were convicted. On appeal, an investigation of the authenticity of the diary was ordered by the court. The investigation was conducted by the federal Office of Criminal Investigation in Wiesbaden, which requested that Otto Frank provide the investigators with all the manuscript documents in his possession.

Before doing so, Otto removed 5 pages (on three sheets) which he wished to remain private, and gave them to a friend, Cornelius Suijk, so that he could assert truthfully to the investigators that he was turning over all the documents in his possession.

Otto died about six months later, and in his will bequeathed all of Anne's manuscripts to the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation (RIOD) in Amsterdam. However, Suijk remained silent about the material in his possession. The existence of this material was unknown to the institute and was therefore not included in the critical editon of the diary published by the RIOD in 1986.

In the summer of 1998 the existence of the missing pages was reported in the press. Suijk indicated he would turn them over to the RIOD, but did not indicate when he would do so. The pages were published by an Amsterdam newspaper in 1999, but it was sued for copyright violation and forced to print an apology. In March 2000 it was announced that Suijk would turn the pages over to the RIOD in exchange for a substantial donation to his personal Holocaust education campaign. The pages were finally published by the RIOD in a new critical edition of the diary in March 2001. I am unsure whether they have yet been published in English translation.

Biographer Carol Ann Lee, who had read the missing pages, indicated that they contain nothing not found in one form or another elsewhere in the diary. Essentially, they concerned Anne's critcal analysis of her parent's marriage.

---

Sorry if this appears twice.

Somebody commented about the Anne Frank page, but put the comment (as a new article) on the Bergen-Belsen page. I move that comment to below. Hopefully somebody can verify it.--branko

"I noticed that in your summary about the whole Anne Frank thing and her diary that you said that she died from exhaustion in Bergen-Belsen. I don't want to boast or anything but she died from typhus after her sister, Margot, died from typhus and she felt she couldn't go on after Margot died." --- Page moved. The diary stuff needs to be expanded before it is spun-off. --mav 09:41 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Last Day

There currently is a discrepancy between the date given on this page (Aug 1) and on the Main Page (Aug 4). Not sure which is correct; there has been some back and forward lately, which unfortunately overlapped with vandalism and reverts. I assume the Main Page is wrong, but I wouldn't know how to edit it. Sebastian 21:17, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Lost pages and other matters

Regarding the so-called lost pages of the diary, it was my understanding that there were in fact 5 pages that Otto Frank did remove from the diary before it was paginated. These pages were, I believe, published in the German publication Het Parool. The Anne Frank Foundation sued them for copyright violation and lost, and supposedly these pages will be included in the latest versions of the Critical Edition of the diary. There is also supposed to be a facsimile edition coming out. The official version of these facts should be up on the Anne Frank Foundation (Anne Frank Fonds) web site.

The history of the diary is a lot more complicated than most people realize because Anne herself had begun rewriting it with a specific eye toward publication. In fact, she wanted to publish it while she was in hiding, but it was too dangerous. Therefore, what she left behind was, of necessity (and with no ill intent) heavily edited and pieced together. It's probably true that Otto Frank found ways to soften some of the harsh things she said, but keep in mind, had she lived, Anne may well have changed such things herself (for instance, she probably wouldn't have left Dr. Pfeffer's pseudonym as "Mr. Dussel" [Mr. Stupid, in German]).

In answer to another person's question, the copyright to the diary is owned by Anne's remaining family members who formed the Anne Frank Fonds (The Anne Frank Foundation) in Basel, Switzerland. As I mentioned above, they are quite aggressive in guarding her name and story, and her message to the world in general, and have undertaken frequent litigation against numerous parties (sometimes winning, sometimes losing).

I agree that this entry could be added to considerably and I would happily supply some material, though I have no official status as an Anne Frank scholar by any means.

The diary is fake, which has been proven several times. Otto Frank in fact hired a guy to write it, and later on this guy sued Otto Frank because he had not paid for the creation of the fictionary diary. Too bad the biased media has forgotten this...

Shouldn't we note that the "study of authenticity" comes from the Institute of Historical Review, an organization dedicated to denying the Holocaust? I think including it as a link without noting that context might be a little sneaky. Jwrosenzweig 20:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just thought I'd note that the edit history of that IP has a pattern of holocaust denial, rather than a pattern of lingustic review, historical document review, etc., or anything else that would indicate that they are a documents scholar seeking to correct errors. Ronabop 09:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I wonder if Anne Frank and/or the Nazis ever stumbled into the Walletje, or the Red Light District? Rickyrab 02:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Another fix to highlight/NPOV the controversy issues that deniers latch on to. A child/young adult, being edited, raises questions about the editing choices. That's not the same as the whole document being fabricated. Ronabop 10:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Little did she know that in 2004, there would be millions of copies in the stores. It is now the second most read book in the world, right after the Bible. Um, really? According to what source, exactly? Please prove or remove. --Woggly 21:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

What's above is not enlightening. A version of the 1980 authenticity flap which at least mentions the crux, the ballpoint pen (which did exist but Anne was supposedly extremely unlikely to have one even if she existed). Straight Dope's version, again mentioning the pen.

Image copyright

I removed the photo of Anne Frank. It was an excellent picture, but unfortunately I noticed elsewhere on the web ([1]) that the Anne Frank House appears to have very aggressive lawyers who threaten anyone who uses these images. While our usage might well hold up as valid fair-use in court (I'm no expert on the matter), Wikipedia of course has no resources to fight this kind of battle, and the last thing we want is to attract legal threats from an organization which has already shown itself to be aggressive. --Shibboleth 02:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article introduction says "After the war, her diary was published, making her world-famous (and bringing her to the same level as people like Madonna and Britney Spears)". I think likening Anne Frank to Madonna and Britney Spears is very strange, and I don't think it's appropriate. Any opinions? Haakon 14:52, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed it - such a comparison isn't NPOV, and I don't think it fits anyway to compare her with pop stars. And I also doubt that in 50 years anyone will know Madonna or Britney Spears as much as Anne Frank is known today. andy 15:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi

Phrasing

current

Initially Anne wrote of her pleasure at having new people to talk to, but tensions quickly developed within the group of people forced to live under such confined conditions. Anne was required to share her room with Pfeffer and found him insufferable. She frequently clashed with Mrs van Pels, and with her own mother whom she referred to as remote. She remained close to her father, and commented that she had developed an unexpected bond with her sister Margot. She later recognised a kinship with the shy and awkward Peter van Pels, and the two entered into a romance.

Mine

Initially Anne wrote of her pleasure at having new people to talk to, but tensions quickly developed within the group of people forced to live under such confined conditions. Anne was required to share her room with Pfeffer and found him insufferable. She frequently clashed with Mrs van Pels, and with her own mother whom she referred to as "remote". However Anne remained close to her father and her sister Margot, and commented that the sibling bond was unexpected. Some time later she developed a kinship with the shy and awkward Peter van Pels, and soon the two entered into a romance which lasted ...

This isn't the best, paraphrasing I have done,(cause I'm dozing here) but I removed the repeated word "She" and prevented the paragraphs from being pure statements (like a police report ;) ). Nichalp 20:14, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Margot Frank was also known to have written a diary during her period in hiding. No trace of it was ever found, and it is assumed to have been destroyed after the arrest.

Anne and Margot Frank each sent a penpal letter to sisters Juanita and Betty Ann Wagner in Iowa, before going into hiding, but were not able to receive the Wagner sisters' reply, as it arrived after they had entered "The Achterhuis". After the war, Otto Frank wrote to the Wagner sisters to inform them of the deaths of his family, and they corresponded for a time.

In 2004, the Dutch broadcaster "KRO" tried to obtain posthumous citizenship for Anne Frank as part of the company's "De Grootste Nederlander" programme. Becoming a Dutch citizen was one of Anne Frank's many unfulfilled wishes. Some controversy followed, partly because such a citizenship would be in stark contrast to the Dutch refugee policy of minister Rita Verdonk. Eventually, the Dutch authorities said that this was practically impossible. See the BBC article

In 2004 a new book was published in The Netherlands, called Mooie zinnen-boek (Book of Beautiful Sentences). Following her father's advice, Anne copied fragments of books and short poems that especially struck her from the many books she read during her stay in "the Achterhuis".

Movie References?

I know that there have been a few movies made of Ann Frank's story. I don't know the details, but I think a link to IMDB would be appropriate. Chadlupkes 01:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers... and other cleanup tasks

I think this article is shaping up nicely. However, I think the two paragraphs in the "Criticism..." section, beginning with "Holocaust deniers comment..." and ending with "...such a young and inexperienced writer." need some cleanup. My mind is kind of blank at the moment, but maybe someone else can give it a go:

• The designation "Holocause deniers" sounds a bit weaselish (is that a word?). All Holocaust deniers think that? Some of them? If so, who? At the moment it's ambiguous who exactly we're talking about here.
• The comments by Levin and Barryman seem out-of-place to me. I know the intent is to show praise for the excellence of the work, which is then used as a argument by the deniers, but it's a bit disorienting to see words of praise in de midst of an argument against the book. Maybe we can seperate the two, making it more like: "The book is praised because blah blah blah.", followed by: "However, Holocaust deniers point out that these qualities blah blah blah".

Hmmm, in the time it took me to write this, I could have done the changes myself. Ah, well... --Plek 13:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've read over that about 50 times over the last couple of days thinking it looked wrong - you're right. The sequence was out-of-place. I've restructured it as you suggested with the "praise blah blah" followed by the "denial blah blah" and that flows better. Got rid of the weaselish holocaust deniers, (it was vague and unsupported), and a few other bits that didn't really fit, and replaced them with a couple of quotes from the Melissa Müller biography, that I think are more appropriate. The whole article is so long... I've been trying to clip bits off here and there but it's not making it shrink very much! Rossrs 14:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about deleting the entire "Fate of family and friends" section? It's good info in itself, but does it really add anything to the story of Anne Frank or the diary? Can we replace the section with a single external link? Also, I think ending the article with the authentication of the diary gives it a sense of closure; the "fate" section reads like a coda that may well be unnecessary..--Plek 15:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're the second person to suggest that. Yes I like the idea of the authentication being closure. It's like the final word. "it's authentic! end of story". I think moving the "fate" section to a new page would work - anyone who wants to look at it can, anyone who doesn't want to, doesn't have to .... much like the Kylie Minogue discography link. It'll need a new title though. "Family and friends of Anne Frank"? no I don't like that... "People associated with Anne Frank"? Any suggestions? Rossrs 15:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe something like this :

"In March 1945, a typhus epidemic spread through the camp killing an estimated 17,000 prisoners. Witnesses later testified that Margot fell from her bunk in her weakened state and was killed by the shock, and that a few days later Anne also died. They estimated that this occurred a few weeks before the camp was liberated by British troops on April 15, 1945, and although the exact dates were not recorded, it is generally accepted to have been between the end of February and the middle of March. After the war, it was estimated that of 110,000 Jews deported from The Netherlands, approximately 5,000 survived.

The individual fates of Anne Frank's family and associates are discussed further. See main article: Anne Frank's family and associates"
What do you think? Rossrs 15:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. The spinoff article would need its own short intro, obviously, but after that it could be left to grow organically, I guess. Oh, and how about adding this article to WP:FAC when done? :-) --Plek 21:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've moved that section to a new article People associated with Anne Frank, and have done a bit more editing. I can't help myself, I keep finding new things to put in. The only major thing I've added is a quote from Miep Gies, plus expanded slightly on the Bergen Belsen paragraph. Apart from that I can't think of anything else. Thanks for the huge support and encouragement. I will put it to WP:FAC in the next few days. I'll let you know when I do. Rossrs 13:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I may suggest a target for your relentless endeavours: think the "Diary" section is a bit short, at only two paragraphs, when compared to the other sections. Is there anything you can add about the things Anne wrote about during that period (i.e. before going into hiding)? This could be inserted as a third paragraph, between the current first and second. Also, the section title "Diary" is a bit, ehh, shortish, I think. "Beginning the diary", "Writing the diary", "Early diary entries"? Those are all crap, but something like that might be better than just "Diary". --Plek 16:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking the "Life Before World War II" section is a wrong section heading, because the period discussed goes past the beginning of the war. Everything else I can think of for a heading sounds like crap. "Diary" - yes too short. Well she didn't write much at all before going into hiding - it's really very short, and because it's not the part of the diary that is most famous, I think to enlarge that section without also expanding the "in hiding" part of the diary by the same proportion, would be wrong. I'm thinking maybe the whole beginning section needs to be one section. With the "Diary" heading removed. Also I'm concerned about getting into too much more detail about the diary, because I can see someone objecting on FAC because I haven't included quotes. I left them out because, firstly I'm not sure if copyright allows us to quote from the diary, and secondly there's a huge wikiquote section anyway. It's a problem, not sure how to deal with it. Maybe the good old "Early life" as used in a zillion other articles, will work. I'll change it, but only because it's better than nothing. If you can think of a better heading, or a better way of doing this, go on and do it, because I'm stumped. Rossrs 14:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section

I swapped the second and third paragraph around to get a better ending, but it's still not perfect and a bit disjointed now. I like the idea to end with the "success" of the Anne Frank House as a major tourist attraction, but the connection with the first paragraph should be restored. Any suggestions? --Plek 23:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but the person who objected was right about the Legacy being in the wrong place :-( But now moving it causes another problem - the sequence is out. It goes 1957, 1963, 1960 and it goes Anne Frank House, Anne Frank Fonds, Anne Frank House. Anne Frank Fonds really must go at the end, I think. What if we do some more research and find something positive to say about Anne Frank Fonds. Nothing big, just a couple of sentences. Put it at the end so the sequence is right - there must be something good someone has said about it. That way we can end it on a positive note. Does that sound ok to you? Rossrs 08:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've taken a look at the Fonds' annual reports, but couldn't find much that was particularly worth mentioning here. I might be wrong, but it feels like it's being run by "suits", and it doesn't seem to be a very exciting organisation. They themselves say that "The AFF works substantially behind the scenes." [2] Maybe we could mention the exhibition in the Washington Holocaust Museum, or list the projects worldwide that the Fonds is sponsoring (see bottom of annual report). Hmmm, I dunno. --Plek 10:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good actually. What about... delete the criticism about the amount being spent - that was one sentence I found in one book. Even mentioning it is probably unfair, because I couldn't find anything to back that up. So removing it completely would be justified. Or it could be abbreviated to "After negative comment about the distribution of funds in 1997, the Fonds ... etc etc did all sorts of wonderful things, and in 2003 they provided financial assistance to projects such as .. etc etc". Keeping it neutral, just a summary of what they are doing. That fits better with the heading "Legacy". Especially if the emphasis is put on which countries have benefited ie how far reaching the legacy has become. Who would have thought a diary written in Amsterdam in 1944 would help children in India in 2003? That is amazing, and worth mentioning. I personally find the Medical Funding of the Righteous Among the Nations very interesting. Whether it needs to be included, I don't know. Maybe it's useful because it demonstrates a different focus to the Anne Frank House. The bit about the Fonds not being legally bound to divulge, would then become "fluff" and could be trimmed or removed. Rossrs 13:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go for it! The Righteous Among the Nations have their own article here, so it adds another link as well. BTW, I am looking into the case of the "missing 5 pages" at the moment. I think this could and should be described, extending the last, short, paragraph in the "Publication" section. When I find out when and why Mr. Suijk deciced to hand over the pages to whom ([3]), I'll writes something about it. --Plek 07:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

have done. the style is a bit like a police report, but basically ok. might need tweaking. Rossrs 10:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article on the diary as a published work

This is a good article, and fits together rather nicely. There should be an article on the book itself, however. Could you make a stub for it with technical details (publishing information, popularity, languages in translation, various editions, etc), with a 'see also' link indicating that more context is available here? +sj + 03:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Have started a stub - it's a very poor stub, but a stub just the same, and will hopefully grow into something healthy. I don't have time to do more than that right now, and I'm a bit embarassed by its inadequacy but it's only young. Rossrs 11:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the stub should contain most of the information on the diary that is in this article, and leave this article to discuss her life instead. As it is, this article contains far more information about the book than the actual article about the book. Alternatively, the information in the book article should be purely technical in nature, leaving the detail and drama here. As it is, the two articles overlap uncomfortably. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anne Frank (User:Sj's objections) to find out why the stub article was created and why it's in its current form. Regarding editing the diary article: the text editor is only a mouseclick away, so feel free to add your contribution to it. As for deleting stuff from this article: it has just been elected to Featured Article status. Please respect the voters' choice by not indiscriminately moving sections from here to the article about the diary. Try to find new information to build a new article about the diary's literary aspects at The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl. Thanks! --Plek 15:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just got an edit conflict because I was trying to update this at the same time as Plek. :-) So anyway, here is what I was saying....

Yes the stub is pretty bad. I did say that above. My opinion is that the Anne Frank article should be comprehensive and discuss her, the diary, the criticism, authentication .. everything. User:Plek presented what I thought was a very strong argument for this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anne Frank. I also presented my own opinion as to why I believe the Anne Frank article should be the prominent one, and the dangers I saw in having two articles about her. Now only a few hours after creating the stub article I can see that I was right in sensing danger. My hope is that someone will come along and edit The Diary of a Young Girl, but that Anne Frank will be left alone for a while. It's been a Featured Article for about 4 hours, and it took several people about 3 months to get it there. I hope it survives for a while before someone decides to gut it and paste half of its contents into the "Diary" page. I'm alarmed that it's being suggested so soon. As for the "Diary" page, it's bad, it overlaps uncomfortably, I agree. It was done in a rush to satisfy an objection that was raised. It's about 5 hours old. It will improve. Please feel free to edit it in any way you think it will be improved, but please respect the current status of the Anne Frank article and not make any of the deletions you have suggested. Rossrs 16:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article Protection

I've noticed that there has been a lot of vandalism and reversion today - I'm wondering if this article should be protected somehow (I've forgotten exactly what its called) to prevent the vandals constantly fouling up the article. --Colin Angus Mackay 12:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've come to the personal opinion that all articles should be protected while they are featured on the Main Page. func(talk) 16:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No they should not!!! We have to remember that this still a wiki and we should not abandon that philosophy. Remember that featured articles that are displayed on the main page are still works-in-process. It is important that new users can edit them. If it gets vandalized we block the vandals, and IF NOTHING ELSE HELPS we can block the page temporarily. Don't let the vandals win! Personally, I really don't think that the main page templates should be locked, that we need to find another solution for that (i had a suggestion at the village pump, but very few seems to have noticed :P), but I guess I'm in the minority on that issue. Gkhan 17:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

The page was protected for about an hour today, which was quickly undone by Raul654. Yes, the feature on the Main Page has led to a fair amount of minor vandalism and the odd Neo-Nazi doing his thing, but all of it was reverted within minutes. I'd say that the Wiki philosphy is working just fine here. Also, it really isn't good advertising to have a big, fat "This article is protected because of vandalism" at the top of our featured article, I think. My point is, if it isn't (truly, utterly and completely) broke, don't fix it. --Plek 17:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay - It is just that I feel that certain topics, like this one, attract a certain type of vandal. A type that I feel is more dangerous because they don't delete the article or inject some obvious vandalism text but they change a few words that make the article read and flow comparably well to the previous version while changing the meaning. Often they do this with only a few choice word replacements. Many people access wikipedia without fully understanding what wikipedia is all about (because they arrived via a google search or similar) and so they see the vandalised text and believe that to be accurate. It is difficult to control, but perhaps short bouts of protection are an acceptable compromise - just long enough for the vandal to get board and go away. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point. There were several moments yesterday when my blood started boiling and I thought, yes the article should be protected, but in hindsight I think that would be wrong. Looking at the edits, I can't see anything that I would call "dangerous", or anything that could be misunderstood by a sane person. The potential exists for exactly the type of subtle changes you mention, but we're confronted with that potential constantly, and it's dealt with. I understand there were probably some people who looked at the article at an inopportune moment, perhaps at the moment Anne Frank was alleged to have grown up in a household of gay orgies, or that she was born in Arizona, and maybe those readers felt that Wikipedia lacked credibility. That's unfortunate. However the potential exists for people who missed the article while it was on Peer Review and as a Featured Article Candidate, to edit and improve it while it's under the spotlight, and that should always be welcome. The vigilance of a number of users in removing the nonsense yesterday is to be commended. The bottom line is that no damage was done, and the vandalism, although mindless, was equally harmless. Also add pointless to the list, when you consider how quickly and easily their clever work was reverted. Notice how things have died down today? Short attention spans being what they are, they've moved on elsewhere and it's almost like they were never here. Rossrs 09:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Main Page articles routinely get better not worse as a result of being on the main page. The process works. Paul August ☎ 18:08, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Missing link

The following link has been added and removed twice:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

Removal of the link has been classed as 'reverting vandalism'. I'm no expert on the subject of Anne Frank so perhaps someone could explain why a link to this particular, albeit controversial, website should be so classified. Arcturus 23:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it is because neo-Nazis keep trying to insert Holocaust Denial material into the article which has already been debunked in the article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's the gest of it. It would make an interesting reference in the Holocaust denial article as an example of the deniers' practices, but it has no value whatsoever here. The authenticity of the diary has since been proved by forensic research and declared as such by a court of law. Finally, the fact that the link was added by a first-time editor with the charming name "Adolf (talk · contribs)" should be a hint as well... --Plek 23:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also the article was written in 1982, during the time the diary was under closest scrutiny and before its authenticity was confirmed by the courts, so apart from anything else, it's redundant. It's also something of a rambling, self-contradicting, unreferenced and unsubstantiated mess, but that's another story. There is perhaps a place for it as an illustration of Holocaust denial, but it immediately reeks of POV and "agenda" when placed specifically into an article such as this. Rossrs 08:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irving paragraph

I removed the quote of D. Irving. In general, dissenters should always have their say, but Irving doesn't inform but simply slanders when he says the diary is valueless because it has been tampered with. For 20 years now there is a critical edition in which every word that Anne Frank wrote herself can be read and every change that was made in the diverse editions can be checked! Quotes in an article have to have at least SOME information on the topic of the article value which Irvings quote hasn't.

Unsigned comment by anon user 62.214.155.193 (talk · contributions). --Plek 13:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the of value of Irving's quote to the article. Irving is clearly labeled a Holocaust denier; the paragraph establishes the problem the diary poses to people who are trying to deny these event every occurred, and the lengths to which they are willing to go to discredit it. I trust the reader, given all the other information provided by the article, will be able to see Irving comments for what they are: ridiculous slander. --Plek 13:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You say you see value in Irving's quote for the article. But you also think it just slander, as I do. So why quote him? There's much material on holocaust deniers here already. I have three reasons to offer for a removal:

1. Irving's words are not open, but insidious. Of course, the diary was edited, and few people know exactly what Anne Frank wrote, though you can always get the critical edition if you want. You don't find a passage following Irvings comment which reacts directly to what he says. Maybe you think nobody believes that anyway ... then you're dreadfully mistaken! I have met poeple myself (more than I'm happy with) who think there is a "Jewish world conspiracy" or some rubbish like that. If you tell them reasons against that they don't really listen to you, but every bit of "evidence" is water on their mills. They are totally content with vague incriminations like the one you give them on this page (the page of Anne Frank!); they do not need more than that to construct their fantasies.

2. About slander generally: One says (I don't know the English expression) "something always remains of slander". You have read the words and you remember them. In any article on any person there should be harsh criticism ... pages of it!! But not slander! I never looked at the page for G.W. Bush or other highly controversial people. These certainly have to endure much critical remarks. But if someone writes something which is simply wrong about a person, and has been proven wrong more than once by different groups of people, and there are no serious lines of argument stated anywhere for it being true - would you quote it in the article of the slandered person?

> This quote belongs in the article of Irving but not in the article of Anne Frank.

3. Most importantly perhaps: The article as it stands is unbalanced. The material about holocaust deniers is nearly as long as her biography! Now, holocaust deniers deny every crime that was done by Nazi people. Therefore, you could give them the same place in hundreds of articles. --Fountaindyke 02:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments. Yes, I do see your point now. While I don't think Irving should be removed completely, as his and others' critique sets up the section about the legal proceedings and the eventual conclusive proof that the diary is genuine, I do think that it could be toned down. Do we really need to know his exact words used to denounce the diary, for instance? I'd like to know what User:Rossrs thoughts are about this matter; I'll drop him a note and try to get him in here.

About your third issue: true, but a other subjects in the article are longer than her biography as well (strictly speaking, the whole diary publication story is not a part of Anne's life, for instance). That's because the underlying philosophy of this article is to provide a broad overview of both her life and of the events that were triggered by it. The text about the deniers and legal issues are thus of historical importance, as the diary was (and remains) an important piece of evidence to dispel the deniers' claims. However, if and when the amount of material in the article is expanded significantly, it may become necessary to relegate certain parts to their own articles. Thanks. --Plek 06:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello Fountaindyke! Thank you for articulating your concerns, and thanks Plek for the message. Now that you've explained your viewpoint, I do agree with a lot of what you've said.

The Irving material I used as a source included Otto Frank's reaction, and Irving's interpretation of Frank's reaction. If I had included some of those details, it might have made it more relevant. I agree with Plek that the first paragraph leads into the necessary discussion of the challenges that have been made. I think the most important thing about including Irving is that it provides an explanation for the Teresian da Silva quote of 1999, 13 years after the diary's official authentication. What would prompt such a bold and unprovoked statement? Answer : people such as Irving. He should be included to support the da Silva quote. The da Silva quote needs to be there lest the reader draw the incorrect conclusion that since 1986 everyone has been happy and the Holocaust deniers have seen the error of their ways. One problem with the Irving quote, I realise, is that it was made in the late 1970s. He has said the same thing a number of times since in similar language, but I think what needs to be conveyed is the malicious intent of continuing to promote such a ridiculous viewpoint. He ignores eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, court rulings, on the basis of .. what? his own prejudice? ... and continues to spread poison. So therefore, as recently as 1999, Anne Frank House made (for them) a very strongly worded statement. I think that overall point is important, but can be made equally well without actually quoting Irving. (or at least not in the detail that he has been quoted).

To comment on your points:
1. You're right. Irving is dangerous, insidious - many things. His attitude is appalling. On the other hand his evil words are more than countered in the article by comments from people such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Nelson Mandela. I know there are people who will latch on to the small bit of evil and ignore everything else, but removing Irving's comment, only because it might strengthen the prejudice of some weak minded person, is not a good enough reason. I think if anyone read the entire article, and took away with them nothing but Irving's hateful comment, they have a problem. I don't think the article should be written or edited with the aim of protecting them from their own muddleheadedness- that should not be our role.
2. On this point I agree with you 100%. There might be occasions when quoting the slander is correct, although I can't think of an example, but certainly not here. I consider this as a fair justification for removing the quotes.
3. On this point I disagree. I see it this way - Anne Frank, who was once a living person, is now something of a figurehead and a legend. Whether this is right or wrong is another matter, but the article needs to address the real person and the "legend". In doing so it must balance between those who support and praise her work and those who don't. You say the section about Holocaust deniers is nearly as long as the biography, and that's simply not true because her biography extends beyond the 15 years she lived. The "denial" section must be at least equal in length to the "Praise for Anne Frank and the diary" section, and it is only slightly longer than that single section. I completely agree with Plek's explanation of the intent of the article, and in my opinion the balance is correct.

My suggestion would be to leave David Irving in the article in a more neutral form. The basics are : he has often described the diary as a forgery, most notably in a book he wrote about Hitler in the 70s. Otto Frank initiated action against him but did not follow through on it. Irving has used that to further state the Frank knew he could not prove him wrong. (Otto Frank was almost 90 years old at the time - his supporters have said he simply was not willing to engage in a protracted battle). Because Irving was not silenced then, and Otto Frank is now dead, he has continued to make negative statements. If something of this could be conveyed in prose, without quotes, to support the da Silva statement, and then flow into what follows, I think that would be ok.

You've certainly given me plenty to think about it, I'm happy to say! I was planning a quiet night in front of the TV! ;-) Rossrs 13:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I think I could live with your proposal. What seems to be so strongly out of place is the quote itself. But then, there seems to be a much deeper problem at work here. I try to describe it. First, the "diary" sections definitely sound wrong to me because of the section titles. They go:

1. Publication of the diary

2. Praise for Anne Frank and the diary

3. Challenges by Holocaust deniers and legal action

This has a strong flavor for me of:

1. Facts

2. Opinion pro

3. Opinion contra

Also, you support that impression by writing: "The 'denial' section must be at least equal in length to the 'Praise for Anne Frank and the diary' section, and it is only slightly longer than that single section." This only makes sense if you see it as a case where you want to give persecution and defence the same rights.

But is that really true? Are there just some people saying "this is a good book" and some "this is a bad book"? No. The cases made are totally different. Anne Frank was an innocent girl who wrote her diary and was murdered. You can dispute everything in that story, but not everything on equal grounds. For example, you could say the diary is "great literature" or it is "just the normal thoughts of a pubescent girl". You can disagree as to its symbol status: does it have one, or doesn't it have one?

This, however, all seems to be in section "2". So, in fact, we get another opposition here.

1. Facts

2. Every opinion on the diary which takes it serious as what it simply is: The diary of an innocent girl which was brutally destroyed, which provably was written by her and therefore has a certain value, irrespective of what literary or symbol qualities we assign to it.

3. The contrary opinion that this diary is just Jewish propaganda.

What we basically get across here is the feeling: There are all those humanists on the one side, who differ on minor points and topics (like two politicians of the same party) which are of little interest to outsiders. Therefore, they all are labeled "praise". And then, there's the others who say some really unpleasant things. Who's to be right? It's your choice!

Please don't take this as a misconstrual, it's just what I strongly feel gets through here, and I think I also have a proof of it: The section title of 2.! "Praise" implies that someone has a positive opinion and wants to get that across. So, all people who basically think 2. are those that "want to take a positive stance", though they use different words for that.

I just reflected on an interesting fact: I never read the "Praise" section until ten minutes ago! And I didn't skip it intentionally, too! I think I can express it this way: I had the feeling I didn't need "praise", like when I start a book which has three pages of "praise" attached before the text, as is often the case with American paperbacks, I skip it because I find this odious, even insulting to the text.

Enough for today! I just wanted to express the deeper problem here which also leads to the wrong feeling one gets, a feeling you have to believe me I really got myself: The feeling, when starting section 3.: now let's listen to those people who take the critical stance! This, of course, is totally wrong here.

--Fountaindyke 18:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a critical stance is important, and I don't think Anne Frank's article should be exempt. As long as it's not slander, I agree on you on that point. I think the discussion of the validation of the diary which followed numerous incidents of denial, is important to be discussed. At the moment it's part of the biographical article but these issues could develop into their own articles in the future. I don't really understand the bad feeling the article gives you, I can only say that I think the structure and content are correct. The David Irving quotes need to be dealt though, and I do agree on that point. cheers Rossrs 08:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there was a misunderstanding. My last sentence didn't mean that 'we shouldn't listen to people with a critical stance'. We always must listen to people with a critical stance!! The question is: Is Holocaust denial just a critical stance? The same people who deny the holocaust are those who propose to make one in the future (this is exactly what E. Zuendel says: There wasn't one, but there should be one.).

--Fountaindyke 11:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well in this case I think Holocaust denial is masquerading as a critical stance. I think deniers can legitimise their statements by presenting them as such. I'm not sure about the lead paragraph of that section now. I've removed the quotes, and have reworded it. I'm not entirely satisfied with it but it's an improvement, I hope. Rossrs 11:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better now. As it stands, the "denial" section certainly is an interesting story. It might still be shortened a bit, though. I still feel a little unconfortable with the word "Praise" in the title of the previous section. It might be called "Evaluation of the diary" or "opinions on" or something. I leave that to your jugdment. Best, --Fountaindyke 20:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dates in the intro

Mel suggested placing my reasons here for reinserting the dates in the intro. Biographies on Wikipedia always (that I have seen) include the date of birth, and death where appropriate, in the intro, as do other encyclopedias. Mel said something about the MoS saying that only the years should be used, but I've never seen that, and if it does say that, it shouldn't. An article going through the FA process, which is the standard all articles should adhere to, would fail without the full dates after the name. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

And I meant to say: as this is a featured article, the quality that allowed it to be given that status should not be lowered after the fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

1. No, sorry, I must have expressed myself unclearly. In fact I meant to invite you to commentat the talk page of the MoS, where I've started a discussion on my suggested style of presenting dates .
2. It's not that the MoS recommends it, it's that my approach is consistent with the MoS (at least that's how I read it, and the last time I checked the discussion there, that was the consensus). I'd like to see it made standard, but I doubt that that will happen. people would rather leave it open.
3. Just to recap my reasons for it: it makes the summary (especially on large articles) cleaner and less cluttered; it allows the summary to summarise what is provided in greater detail in the article. It's also, in fact, the standard approach taken in most print encyclopædias that I've looked at (the ones that bother with anything more than the years, that is, which admittedly are in the minority).
4. Would it really stop an article reaching FA status? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An article going through the FAS process is expected to adhere to the Wikipedia standard of including the full dates, where these are known. Whether it would actually fail if an author insisted on not including them, I don't know; but it would certainly be corrected, and if the author reverted those changes, then yes, I think it probably would fail, depending on who was voting. As for other encyclopedias, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, includes dates and places of birth and death in brackets after the name in biographies. People check encyclopedia entries for precisely this kind of information: it shouldn't be buried in the text forcing them to search for it, and I don't see how adding the day and month clutters an introduction any more than the year does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Liberation of Auschwitz

The article says, "They estimated that this occurred a few weeks before the camp was liberated by British troops on April 15 ..." According to the article on Auschwitz, the camp was liberated by Soviet troops, not British, and on January 27, not April 15. Could someone clear this up? Haakon 9 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

Hello Haakon. You're right about Auschwitz being liberated by Soviet Troops, however Anne and Margot Frank were transferred from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen where they died. Bergen-Belsen was liberated by British troops on April 15, 1945. Rossrs 9 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

Ach, I should have read more thoroughly, you (and the article) are of course right. Thanks. Haakon 19:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

you are very welcome! Rossrs 06:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Movies?

Is there a reason that no mention is made of the various movies about Anne Frank? The arts paragraph at the bottom of the article mentions a song by Outkast and other minor things, and yet nothing about the oscar winning Anne Frank movie that came out in the sixties. There have also been several versions since then. - Anon

that's a good point, and not forgetting the rather good television production of a couple of years ago with Ben Kingsley. Those other references you mention have been added since the article was featured. I think adding the information about the films is appropriate especially in view of some of the obscure things mentioned. Rossrs 08:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed all references to her being German

Anne Frank is not German, every Jew and every German would freely admit that she was not. So please stop putting her in false categories.

Why don't you do a poll of "every Jew and every German" first, and then get back to us? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Go to a synagogue, a Catholic chruch and a Lutheran church. Ask everyone there if a Jewish person can be German, they will say no. German Jews don't even look like Germans, after someone Jewish leaves Germany they are not German anymore, if they are in Germany at the time then they can be considered German due to nationality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.112.49 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 July 2005.

Well at least the racism of this attempt to censor the article is now out in the open, as well as its peculiar illogic. Apparently being German is racial (and that's merely a matter of how one looks — even the Nazis didn't think that), though one can have German "nationality" by virtue of geography. The peculiar and obviously false notion that any Jew, Catholic, or Lutheran would agree that Jews can't be German doesn't warrant any serious rebuttal. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that someone can be both Jewish and German, Anne Frank obviously picked up a good deal of Dutch nationality during her Netherlands years. Thus, it is more accurate to say she was Jewish, German, and Dutch. Nonetheless, since she was of more than one European nation, it would probably be simpler to call her a European girl and leave it at that. Europe is kinda molding into the European Union with a common currency, etc., so why not? — Rickyrab | Talk 08:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

additional info added

Other pages, however, were determined by German forensic laboratories in Wiesbaden to have been written in ballpoint ink. Ballpoint pens did not become available until after 1951.

This prompted media attention. On October 9, 1980, the New York Post ran a report titled: Anne Frank may not have inked that famous diary and stated: The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work [Anne Frank's diary], specially of the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen.

(Redzen 11:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC))

Have also added the following update:

However, in 1991, revisionist historians Robert Faurisson and Siegfried Verbeke produced a booklet titled: The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach. It asserted that the Diary contains several contradictions; that hiding in the secret annex would have been impossible; and that the style and handwriting of Anne Frank are not those of a teenager.

In December 1993, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds in Basle instigated a civil law suit in order to prohibited the further distribution of The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach in the Netherlands.

As Teresien da Silva of the Anne Frank House states:

Five years later, on December 9, 1998, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants and forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect. The court imposed a penalty of 25,000-guilders per infringement.[4]

The Court stated that it was not within the competence of judges to offer an opinion on the authenticity of the Diary and that, in principle, Verbeke and Faurisson were acting within their rigths to query its authenticity. However, the two authors had done so in a manner offensive to the memory of the girl's father and/or to those who cherish the memory of Anne Frank.

Moreover, they had placed their critical analysis within the framework of an inadmissable challenge, namely, "holocaust denial".

Although this was a victory for the Anne Frank House and the Anne Frank Fonds, the authors Verbeke and Faurisson pointed out the judgment delivered against them was because of the "form" taken by their critical analysis, and not because of the "content".

(Redzen 10:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

I've removed this neo-nazi junk. See [5] for further ref. --Viriditas | Talk 10:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I will put it back! Whether the authors are neo-nazis is completely irrelevant!It is relevant to the denials and legal section! It is a relevant update. The case is talked about on the Anne Frank site itself if you see the ref. provided!

(Redzen 10:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

I don't specifically have a problem with you addressing this particular issue and I am prepared to be open minded. However, because it is contraversial and emotive, and casts doubt on what is "accepted" as truth, you need to be completely scrupulous in citing sources. The source you have cited covers the first section of text, and that's fine, however the final three paragraphs, which suggest a conclusion has been drawn, are therefore highly significant. These comments/conclusions are not supported by any source. Please cite a source for this additional information. ie everything from "The court stated" through to "and not because of the content". I've looked through a number of webpages related to the case, and found nothing that supported the last 3 paragraphs, so I look forward to being enlightened. Thank you. Rossrs 11:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Redzen has misstated the issue, and as it is currently presented in the article, it is misleading and full of inaccuracies that Redzen hasn't taken the time to correct. He has merely inserted the usual neo-Nazi myths alongside an actual legal judgement. None of Anne Franks diaries are written in ballpoint; note the misleading reference to "other pages", i.e. not her diary, and the further commentary about ballpoint pens which attempts to cast doubt on the diary. In fact, two slips of paper, containing ballpoint pen written by someone other than Anne Frank, were inserted as bookmarks after the war, apparently by former Swiss custodians. (See also: The Diary of Anne Frank : The Revised Critical Edition) Moving on, Robert Faurisson and Siegfried Verbeke are not historians as he claims. Faurisson is a professor of literature at the University of Lyons, and Siegfried Verbeke is a publisher, both neo-Nazis. Redzen calls the work of neo-Nazi's "critical analysis" (unsourced) and he provides no counterarguments to the so-called allegations. This is an attempt to confuse an actual legal issue by introducting discredited, questionable, and suspect assertions that have been throroughly debunked. I have no problem with the issue being presented in a neutral format, but until that time, I will revert obvious unsourced propaganda on sight. --Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Viriditas and I'll support you on this, although I would like to read Redzen's comments. If the case needs to be mentioned at all it needs to be as brief and as neutral as the other cases mentioned. I was concerned that Redzen's comments attached too much significance to the case itself, but also appeared to draw conclusions. My understanding of the ballpoint pen issue is that there are a couple of notes in the margin of 2 pages, written in green ballpoint and of a completely different handwriting style. Regardless of what the New York Post speculated in 1980, the Dutch court has accepted that it's been added during the editing process and that it has never been published or attributed as Anne Frank's writing. Rossrs 12:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

ok, well the ballpoint issue is minor. I read that they were in the margins, but come to think of it, the Revised Critical Edition describes them as bookmarks. Rossrs 12:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The Revised Critical Edition of the Diary of Anne Frank (published 2003) reproduces images (pages 167-171) of the two slips of paper in ballpoint ink which were added to Anne Frank's loose sheets manuscript, and in the chapter summarising the findings of the Netherlands Forensic Institute which analysed the materials, ink and handwriting in the manuscripts of Anne Frank, H.J.J. Hardy writes on the matter:

'The only ballpoint writing was found on two loose scraps of paper included among the losse sheets. Figures VI-I-I and 3 show the way in which these scraps of paper had been inserted into the relevant plastic folders. As far as the factual contents of the diary are concerned the ballpoint writings have no significance whatsoever. Morever, the handwriting on the scraps of paper and in the diary differs strikingly.' (page 167)

A footnote to this text adds:

'The Hamburg psychologist and court-appointed handwriting expert Hans Ockleman stated in a letter to the Anne Frank Fonds dated Septemmber 27 1987 that his mother, Mrs Dorothea Ockleman wrote the ballpoint texts in question when she collaborated with Mrs Minna Becker in investigating the diaries.' (page 167) Yallery Brown, 16:00, 16 October 2005

Redzen's sources

Redzen keeps adding a link to Castle Hill Publishers as his source. The site is run by Germar Rudolf. --Viriditas | Talk 22:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

explain, please

Why are my contributions on this article constantly deleted? Why have I been threatened with being blocked when my contributions do not violate Wiki policy?

Justify these actions please. (Redzen 01:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

All of your questions have been answered above. Your edits are not NPOV and are referenced from a disreputable source. Further, you violated the WP:3RR policy by reverting the page four times, and you did so after I warned you on your talk page:

1. 10:51, 16 October 2005 [6]
2. 14:49, 16 October 2005 [7]
3. 15:45, 16 October 2005 [8]
4. 01:16, 17 October 2005 [9]

--Viriditas | Talk 01:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Slow down, both of you. I have reverted to a version from a few days back. I saw the word "Kitty" in the edit summary and recognized that as being in the diary, so I chose that one. Then I locked the article.

Now what's this all about? Are we arguing about which source is correct? That the diary (1) has been definitively been proven genuine or (2) that we know for sure that it is a forgery?

You know, we have a policy for this kind of thing (see Wikipedia:POV). And no, that's not a typo: I left out the "N" on purpose. Uncle Ed 01:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This is old news. The ballpoint pen stuff is way limited and likely postwar commentary by an editor and yes, the source Redzen's citing seems more motivated by revisionist history in general than scholarship. Both the forensic evidence and content overwhelmingly indicate the diary's genuine. Wyss 02:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, when did you protect this page? I see no notice on the page itself, nor do I see any indication in the edit history that you reverted to any previous version. I was not aware it was protected, and have been editing it, incorporating the new material from Redzen as well as information on the Talk: page. Are you planning to protect it once I am finished editing? If so, I am quite willing to stop at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm checking all protected pages and updating [[Wikipedia:Protected page]. I've added the "protected" template to this one as a purely clerical matter. Please go to WP:RFPP to discuss whether this protection needs to continue. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I haven't violated any Wiki policy or guideline. If I have, then I am still waiting for someone to point out exactly where and how. If so, I'll gladly apologise to all concerned and delete the offending passages myself! So far this has not been done.

But, in a genuine attempt to find concordance I will justify my inclusions.

1. My contributions falls into the section of denials and legal action in the AF article and so are entirely relevant.

2. The ballpoint pen is relevant because it was made not by some 'self-appointed expert' crank, but the information came from German police forensics department. Therefore, this is an important point.

3. The Verbeke case is relevant because it was a landmark case in Holland resulting in penalties for anyone now challenging the authenticity of the diary. The case is referred to on the AF site itself - so why not on Wiki?

Inorder to adopt a genuinely NEUTRAL POV, one does not take sides but merely posts information in a fair and balanced way, that means being objective and not allowing one's own POV to intervene, whether it involves neo-nazis or anyone else.

If I have not been neutral, can someone kindly point out where and how? Because I can't see it myself.

And yes, I have been repeatedly reverting the article that includes all my contributions - alldeleted as apparently nothing more than an act of vandalism and intollerance.

As far as I can see it, the deletions cannot otherwise be justified.

(Redzen 03:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

Many of your insertions are retained in the current version, which gives accurate information regarding the ballpoint pen information. What is your objection to it? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea that Many of my insertions were retained in the current version. When was this done?

The only objection I've ever had is the persistence of some people in deleting entire swathes of my input as if Wiki was under some sort of "no platform" policy.

The current version is a preferable alternative.

(Redzen 05:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

If you want to suggest I'm a vandal go right ahead as I'm one of the users that deleted your text. I agree the current version is satisfactory, but I also think it was correct to remove "entire swathes" of your contribution because it was on the whole, very unbalanced, and contrary to your assertions above, it did present the information a biased manner, and I'll explain further what I mean specifically. To comment about your points above. 1. I agree that there is nothing wrong in discussing the case. 2. The ballpoint pen is worth mentioning as part of the "evidence" offered by deniers only if it is qualified by an update on the allegation, which you did not provide. The casual reader might have assumed that the ballpoint pen had thrown a huge question mark over the entire diary since the 1980s, and that it remained a cause for doubt because there was nothing in the article to suggest otherwise. The Dutch court has accepted that the ballpoint pen was used on bookmarks and was probably the work of an editor. Further the Critical Edition contains a reproduction of them, and another person has stated it was written by a member of his family while she was editing the diary. Mentioning the first section as you did in several reverts, without the qualification, suggests some kind of conspiracy and is POV. Mentioning both sides of the story is balanced and acceptable. As it reads now, is fine. 3. No problem mentioning the case but don't give it greater weight than other cases - that implies it's more significant, or has more foundation than the others.

This section was a real problem :

The Court stated that it was not within the competence of judges to offer an opinion on the authenticity of the Diary and that, in principle, Verbeke and Faurisson were acting within their rigths to query its authenticity. However, the two authors had done so in a manner offensive to the memory of the girl's father and/or to those who cherish the memory of Anne Frank.

Moreover, they had placed their critical analysis within the framework of an inadmissable challenge, namely, "holocaust denial".

Although this was a victory for the Anne Frank House and the Anne Frank Fonds, the authors Verbeke and Faurisson pointed out the judgment delivered against them was because of the "form" taken by their critical analysis, and not because of the "content".

This is heavily POV in it's tone. The language condones the sentiments of the defendants and presents them as fact. Examples: they "pointed out". No, they didn't point out anything. They "claimed". "Pointed out" literally means "exposed the facts". No they didn't. They gave their opinion and that's all. Their "critical analysis" was not a "critical analysis" in the true literary sense. It was critical only in so far as it found fault. "Critical analysis" implies legitimacy - the legal ruling found the opposite, and yet the style of language suggests that it was the legal process itself that was flawed. The source is not what I'd consider reputable. It's heavily biased. I'm glad this section is gone, and I hope it stays gone because even if the POV is stripped from it, it adds to the length of discussion on this particular case, and therefore makes this case seem more important than the others.

But as I said earlier, I think the article is ok as it now stands. As we seem to have agreed on that point, let's move on. Rossrs 09:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, Rossrs. Let's have no more on the ridiculous and groundless revisionism. The authenticity of Anne Frank's manuscripts has been demonstrated by goverment sourced quarters. Their findings were published in a 225 page report which concludes that it is unreasonable to assume that the manuscripts were written by anyone other than Anne Frank, and that the so-called ballpoint examples were evidently editorial notes made on two slips of paper by an identified source while the work was being prepared for publication. Anyone who continues to suggest that these findings are wrong is clearly not taking in what has been already documented or has an anti-semitic agenda. I know that may be controversial but hey, no-one's claiming over on James Joyce that Ulysses wasn't written by him. Yallery Brown, 00:40, 18 October 2005

More ridiculous than controversial. Silly comment that more than anything demonstates the sort of thinking that anyone attempting to establish a NPOV in certain areas is up against.

Ulysses is a work of fiction for a start...

(Redzen 02:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC))

Yeah, except you say DoAF is a work of fiction, while the forensic, textual and historical evidence suggest overwhelmingly that it is autobiography. Wyss 07:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect please

Can we get this unprotected now? Lots of experienced editors are now aware of the edits and it seems to me this can be handled. Wyss 13:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not? One other admin never even noticed the fact that it was protected, and he even missed my talk page comment saying that I reverted and protected it. So I guess protection isn't "protecting" it very well. Uncle Ed 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's still protected... will someone unlock it please? Wyss 08:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A toast in honor of Anne Frank, this Dia de los Muertos

• Tis unfortunate, y'know
• That tragedy happened before you became famous
• Tis quite poignant, y'know
• That your fame was entirely posthumous
• All the same, for your wonderful idea, y'know
• We might as well honor you for those years
• We've been graced with your books, y'know
• To Annelies Frank, bonny cheers!

Rickyrab 05:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Achterhuis/Secret Annexe

With regards to the recent edit saying that "Secret Annexe" was a term coined by Frank and that "Achterhuis" is the Dutch word it's translated from, as far as I know this is incorrect. The bulk of this article was written earlier this year by myself and User:Plek who is a resident of The Netherlands and a fluent speaker of Dutch. Plek (who is no longer contributing to Wikipedia) advised that "achterhius" is an old Dutch word which is used to describe a rear "apartment" of a Dutch building that are fairly common in old Dutch buildings, and this was confirmed by another Dutch Wikipedian (can't remember who confirmed it) When Frank described the building as "achterhuis" she was using the literal and correct term for it, but she also referred to it, more whimsically as the "Secret Annexe". She used the two terms in different contexts, and one is not a translation of the other. Therefore the original edits were correct, and I have reverted them. cheers Rossrs 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that "Secret Annexe" was "a term coined by Frank". What I meant was that Anne had simply used the term "het achterhuis" but the original English translator, B.M. Mooyaart-Doubleday, had translated the term as "the Secret Annexe". In other words, “Secret Annexe” was a term coined by the translator, not by Frank. In the Critical Edition in Dutch, published by the NIOD in 1986 (revised 2001), on page 259, in the entry for 9 July 1942, it reads "Rechts van de overloop ligt <het Achterhuis>". This is translated in the English Revised Critical Edition (2001) on page 234 as "To the right of our landing lies our 'Secret Annex'". The same Dutch word and the same translation also appear at the ends of the two paragraphs. In the entry for 10 July, again "achterhuis" is used in the Dutch version (page 260) and "Secret Annex" is used in the translation (page 235). This is why I assumed that "Secret Annex" was simply the translator's translation of "achterhuis". From what you are saying, Anne sometimes used a different term than "achterhuis", which was translated as "Secret Annexe". What was this other whimsical term she used in Dutch and where in the diaries did she use it? If what you say is correct, it would imply that the translation used in the Revised Critical Edition, at least on these pages, is wrong. So are you referring to the translation used in the Definitive Edition? (Marsoult 06:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

I'm only going by memory from reading the diary. It's the "definitive" rather than the Critical Edition, so it may be flawed. It was just after they moved into hiding and she was still viewing it as an adventure. I'll try to find it. Sorry if I misunderstood what you said. Rossrs 08:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the Definitive Edition, and you're right that sometimes the translation says "the Annexe" and sometimes "the Secret Annexe". However, according to the Dutch Revised Critical Edition (DRCE), the original word used by Anne in all these cases (there are 5 altogether over July 9-11, 1942) is "Achterhuis". And, as I indicated before, the translation for the English Revised Critical Edition consistently says "Secret Annex" (except in one place where the term isn't translated at all). So the question is: Why does the translator of the Definitive Edition, Susan Massotty, sometimes use “the Annexe” and sometimes “the Secret Annexe”?

Towards the end of the entry for 10 July, 1942, the DRCE says: “toen vond ik voor het eerst sinds onze aankomst in het Achterhuis gelegenheid om je de gebeurtenissen mede te delen”. Massotty translates this as: “Then for the first time since our arrival in the Secret Annexe, I found a moment to tell you all about it” (Penguin 2001, p. 26). But in the entry for 11 July, the DRCE says: “Het Achterhuis is als schuillplaats ideaal”, which Massotty translates as: “The Annexe is an ideal place to hide in” (p. 26) (all emphases are mine). There does not seem to be any word in the first Dutch sentence that distinguishes the meaning of "Achterhuis" from its meaning in the second Dutch sentence (“gelegenheid” means “occasion” or “opportunity”). Only a person who can read Dutch well (which I can't) could confirm this, but it seems to me, on this evidence, that the use of two different terms is a contribution of Massotty. Anne only ever used the term “(het) Achterhuis”, while Mooyaart-Doubleday only ever used “(the) Secret Annexe” (at least in these entries).

So I think the way the Wikipedia article is currently written is misleading since it defines “achterthuis” as “the rear part of a house” but then says that “Anne would later refer to [the achterhuis] in her diary as the ‘Secret Annexe’”, implying that she used a different term than “achterthuis”. The problem, of course, is that there is no English word that means “achterhuis”. But the term “secret annexe” was really the translators’ term, not Anne’s. And the use of two different terms was Massotty’s contribution, not Anne’s.

There’s probably a better way of solving the problem than what I did, but I do feel something needs to be done. (Marsoult 10:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

I appreciate your research into this matter. Perhaps the sentence “Anne would later refer to [the achterhuis] in her diary as the ‘Secret Annexe’” should be deleted as it is misleading, or even downright incorrect. Everything else in that section, I think, is appropriate. Perhaps the "Secret Annexe" could be mentioned somewhere in the article as a term coined by a translator of the original diary which has become well known, but make it clear that Anne herself did not make the reference. On second thoughts, it sounds like a marketing device - it has a distinctly Enid Blyton ring to it, perhaps not surprisingly considering when it was published (and I'm sure that the term was used in the marketing of the diary). I don't know what's best. I don't think the article would suffer if the "Secret Annexe" term was not discussed, especially in view of the fact that it was an inexact translation, although it may have some significance simply because it's well known by that name. Would you please edit the article as you see fit, and I'll trust your judgement. I'm going to be away for about a month so it will be at least that long before I'm able to comment further, but I'm sure that you are correct and I was mistaken. Rossrs 14:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Originally I thought about simply deleting that sentence, but then noticed that "secret annexe" was used later in the article, so needed to be clarified at some point early on (hence the change I made). I'll try to do some more research into the origin of the term in the diary and then make an appropriate change. I totally agree with you that it has a certain Enid Blyton ring to it, and may not be a good translation. But then again Massotty sometimes used the term in the translation she did in the 90s. Anyway, I'll make some kind of alteration in the near future. Thanks. (Marsoult 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

An appropriate translation of Achterhuis is Backhouse, and is used in Dutch with the comparative Voorhuis, meaning Fronthouse (Voor meaning front, Achter meaning behind, or rear), which explains the original English translation of Anne's short stories which are currently published under the title 'Tales From the Secret Annexe', as 'Tales from the House Behind'. The term 'Secret Annexe' was used for the original English translation to give readers an indication of the hidden position of the back-house, which would not have been apparent to readers had they used the term Back-house. In her writings Anne referred both to het voorhuis (the front house, where the offices were) and het achterhuis (the back house), but the editors of Critical Edition have continued to use term Secret Annexe for the sake of continuity with the translation which most readers are familiar with. Yallery Brown 21:40, 2 November 2005

What you say, Yallery Brown, confirms my point that "secret annexe" was not Anne's term. I wonder if the word "achterhuis" connotes secrecy in Dutch, or was it purely the original translator's interpretation? As agreed with Rossrs above, I have deleted the sentence that implies that "secret annexe" was Anne's term. I have also mentioned that it was used to translate "achterhuis" next to the proper definition of the Dutch word given in parentheses. This might be a bit clumsy, though the origin of "secret annexe" should be mentioned somewhere because the term is so well-known. But it shouldn't be attributed to Anne. (Marsoult 05:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

You're right to think "Secret Annexe" was not used by Anne and it is inaccurate to attribute it to her, however the term was later approved by her father as an appropriate translation for the English edition as there isn't an exact English match. Miep Gies has used the term 'Secret Annexe' in English interviews but this was so she could remain consistent with the terms familiar to English speaking readers. "Achterhuis" doesn't denote secrecy in Dutch, it simply means the Back Building, or the Rear House. For readers familiar with Dutch architecture an explanation of its tucked-away situation would not necessarily be required, but for English readers the term 'Rear House' would not convey anything. An evocative name was required and after various suggestions (one of them being 'The Hidden Annexe') the publishers, translator and Otto Frank agreed on 'The Secret Annexe'. It is valid to use the term when writing about the hiding place because it's what we've known it as, however you are correct to say that term was unknown to Anne Frank.

(Yallery Brown 15:21, 3 November 2005)

Dang. Y'all beat me by more than a month, but, yeah, you're correct about Voorhuises and Achterhuises. I put a bit of info about them into the article. — Rickyrab | Talk 08:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Kitty

I recently deleted the references to Kitty because they appeared in the paragraph discussing the early entries before Anne went into hiding. She did not use "Dear Kitty" during this time (only added the salutation to these entries when revising in 1944), so it wasn't appropriate to refer to Kitty in this paragraph. However, in such a thorough article as this, I really think Kitty should be mentioned somewhere. After all, it's the most famous word associated with Anne and her diary. But it should be mentioned in a more appropriate place. Not sure where though. (Marsoult 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

ANNE FRANK SHE WAS AN UNDENIAABLE GIRL