Talk:Anne Frank

Missing image
Cscr-featured.png
Featured article star

Anne Frank is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Template:Oldpeerreview

Contents

1 Unsorted Discussion and Minor Issues

1.1 Last Day

2 Lost pages and other matters

7 Holocaust deniers... and other cleanup tasks

8 The "Legacy" section

9 Article on the diary as a published work

10 Article Protection

11 Missing link

12 Irving paragraph

13 Dates in the intro

Unsorted Discussion and Minor Issues

An event mentioned in this article is a August 4 selected anniversary

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 (http://www.annefrank.nl/eng/articles/authenticiteit.html) 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 (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030808.html), 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] (http://www.geocities.com/afdiary/images.htm)) 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)

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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3714204.stm)

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] (http://www.annefrank.ch/content/page-1.asp?PortLink=209&UnLnk=40&ConType=1&Lev=2&PortalId=99&RecordId=87) 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] (http://www.annefrank.org/content.asp?PID=432&LID=2)), 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl&action=edit), 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)

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 .
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.
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).
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)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Anne_Frank"

Categories: Wikipedia featured articles