Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5

diaries are fake
In a number of court cases in Germany hand writing experts have repeatedly stated that the diaries were written by the same person.

When the German version of the FBI was called in they stated that portions of the diaries (especially vol 4) were written in a type of ball point INK not produced prior to 1951.

So if all of it was written by the same person, and some of it was written in ink not available till 1951 and after, they could not have been written by Anne Frank who died in 1945.

QED They are fiction!71.174.135.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Der Spiegel 2
This is probably not the Der Spiegel article referenced above (based on the date), but it also states the same thing.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14317313.html

Ein Gutachten des Bundeskriminalamts belegt: Im "Tagebuch der Anne Frank" ist nachträglich redigiert worden. Die Echtheit des Dokuments wurde damit weiter in Zweifel gezogen.

Google translate renders the above as follows in English

A report by the Bundeskriminalamt is: In "Diary of Anne Frank" has been edited afterwards. The authenticity of the document was thus drawn further into doubt.

Those interested can go the article, cut and paste it, and ytry to make sence of the less then perfect translation. the part about the ball point ink being from 1951 and after is 5 paragraphs down.71.174.135.36 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright holder for the diaries sez
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/who-wrote-the-diary-of-anne-frank/?_r=0

The foundation, the Anne Frank Fonds, is telling publishers that Otto Frank, Anne’s father, is a co-author of the book.

Officials at the foundation argue that Mr. Frank shares authorship of the book because he edited and combined entries from his daughter’s diary and notebooks into the cohesive text that readers around the world are familiar with. A Paris-based lawyer specializing in intellectual property issues, Agnès Tricoire, told The Times that the foundation’s explanation suggests that it has “lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.”

On the other hand

Per Der Spiegal, handwritting experts unanimously stated IN COURT that all portion of the work were written by the same person.

Makes you wonder! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.36 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This controversy is already discussed in the article, including a Hamburg court ruling long after the publication of the article you cite that determined that the manuscript was authentic. Do you have specific improvements to suggest to the article?  General Ization   Talk   04:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A mention of the Bundeskriminalamt finding that portions of the diaries were written in ball point pen INK not available before 1951 would be nice.71.174.135.36 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Der Spiegal
http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/

71.174.135.36 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the copyright material you posted on this page. Interested editors can click on the above link if they wish to read it. It does not look to me like it is a scholarly reliable source though. It looks like a neo-Nazi site to be honest. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And why would a site that reproduces a Der Spiegal (equivalent to Time magazine for Germans) article reporting on their version of the FBI be neo-Nazi?71.174.135.36 (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Free use of publicly available works allows portions of those works to be used as long as it is not for profit

As a result I am restoring a small portion of the article - those interested can read the whole article in the link provide.

per Dr. William L. Pierce

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.36 (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am once again removing the copyright material, because our fair use guidelines call for "no free replacement". The free replacement in this instance is the clickable link to the source article. Please don't restore this unnecessary copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

From wiki policies "Limited use of copyrighted text, for example, can be done without requiring permission from the rights holders". When you see quoted material in a wiki article, in a book, in a magazine, or online, this is what I am talking about. Limited use is allowed per the fair use doctrine. Again restoring a limited portion of the article. Notice I included the authors name to stay in like with that doctrine.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

TUCKED AWAY ON pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war. (ILLUSTRATION: Anne Frank. She died of typhus in 1945 — but she didn’t write a diary.)71.174.135.36 (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Due to the complaint on the website where the above article appears. I found this article from the NEW YORK POST reproduced in its entirety (probably in violation of fair use) at this site, which pretty much states the same thing.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/controversies/AnneFrank/ballpoint1080.html

The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work, specially of the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, the BKA concluded, those sections must have been added subsequently.71.174.135.36 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Netherlands State Institute of War Documentation
The wiki article does not seem to reflect the actual contents of the Instututes report as the report includes the following, which points out that a comment by Otto Frank that only a few portions have been altered, is an "obvious understatement".

http://vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF0006xx.html

"With the exception of a few sections of little interest to the reader, the original text has been retained," must be seen as something more than an obvious understatement. 71.174.135.36 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

that there copyright thingy
General Ization(TM) has also made threats on my talk page about getting banned for posting copyrighted material on this talk page.

As responded previously to Diannaa on her (I presume her - you never know on the internet) talk page, the article contains substantial material that falls under his (I presume him - you never know on the internet) limited definition of fair use and therefore should be deleted.

Go for it!

The material follows and is in excess of anything posted by myself. If the material I posted is outside the scope of fair use, then so is the following

again

GO FOR IT!

I finally realized that I must do my schoolwork to keep from being ignorant, to get on in life, to become a journalist, because that's what I want! I know I can write ..., but it remains to be seen whether I really have talent ...

And if I don't have the talent to write books or newspaper articles, I can always write for myself. But I want to achieve more than that. I can't imagine living like Mother, Mrs. van Daan and all the women who go about their work and are then forgotten. I need to have something besides a husband and children to devote myself to! ...

I want to be useful or bring enjoyment to all people, even those I've never met. I want to go on living even after my death! And that's why I'm so grateful to God for having given me this gift, which I can use to develop myself and to express all that's inside me!

When I write I can shake off all my cares. My sorrow disappears, my spirits are revived! But, and that's a big question, will I ever be able to write something great, will I ever become a journalist or a writer? — Anne Frank[36] 71.174.135.36 (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no need to worry about these excerpts, as the diary is in the public domain as of 1 January 2016. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But was that material included in the article prior to Jan 1? Why I do believe it was!
 * FYI:Per basic manners (getting along with people 101), an apology should be given when a person gives another person a hard times, while being in the wrong side.71.174.135.36 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Death date
It is a bit odd to see the death date of Anne Frank in this article once again stated as March 1945, whereas the accompanying note clearly states February 1945. Moreover: the source is authoritative (Anne Frank House Amsterdam), and points to a research article and underlying sources. It states: Anne and Margot's deaths must have occurred in February 1945. Vysotsky (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what we need to do is state that the death date was originally assumed to have been March, but that recent research supports an earlier date of February. The research article is here, with a separate list of sources here. — Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Could we list her death date as February/March 1945 and then explain it? In fact, her death date probably rates its own subsection. Rklawton (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, include her age as (aged 15) in her death date section as it’s the same age despite the ambiguity in the month. Timetraveller1992 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Rklawton (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Germany/Weimar Republic
Linguist111 tries to introduce the (grammatically incorrect) wording "Born in the city of Frankfurt in Weimar Republic (now Germany)," in the lead, instead of the former "Frankfurt, Germany" and claims that "Germany was known as Weimar Republic". This is factually incorrect and silly. Germany was Germany then, and also known as such, and it is Germany now. A wording like "now Germany" is sheer nonsense. "Weimar Republic" is simply a term historians have used to refer to a particular period of the history of Germany, not unlike the term "British Raj" (as in "born in India during the British Raj") or "Third Polish Republic", in reference to Poland's post-communist history and current political system. To be meaningful, the wording would have to be "born in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar Republic". However, for geographical purposes, particularly in the lead section, it's quite sufficient to state her birthplace simply as Frankfurt, Germany, which it was known as then, and which it is known as now. It is also completely unnecessary to use the verbose wording "Born in the city of Frankfurt..." instead of just "Born in Frankfurt" in the lead section, which is supposed to be concise. --Tataral (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The same argument also applies to the infobox. However, the Weimar Republic could be mentioned in the more detailed "Early life" section, for example like this: "Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar Republic (era)". --Tataral (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The "Weimar Republic" wording seems unnecessary and potentially confusing. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly either way about whether it's included, as long as we avoid the silly "now Germany" wording and the misunderstanding that the Weimar Republic was a geographical name. --Tataral (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Anne Frank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203031108/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/saplings-anne-franks-tree-take-root-us to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/saplings-anne-franks-tree-take-root-us
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/anne-frank
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/frank-anne

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Date of death
I have reason to believe, that based on the Anne Frank House and the Danish Government, that Anne Frank died exactly on February 19th,1945 at the Bergen-Besen Concentration Camp due to complications from Typhus, which she had been suffering from since February 7th. 2601:19D:300:3086:D157:8E7F:C72B:35D5 (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have a published reliable source supporting this information? Sources cited in the article generally agree that such records were not kept, or at least have not survived.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As (current) citation 4 in the article already indicates, the date can't be established exactly. Last research by the Anne Frank Foundation in Amsterdam (Erika Prins en Gertjan Broek, 2015) specifically mentions the date as "some time in February. The exact date is unknown." Read the research article, referred to at the website of the Anne Frank House. Vysotsky (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2017
I don't feel entirely confident about Nazi camp excavations may have unearthed pendant linked to Anne Frank —  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The pendant bit is interesting and might warrant mention in an article about various artifacts associated with Anne Frank. As this is her biography and she made no mention of her pendant, the possible existence of a matching pendant is ultimately too trivial for inclusion here. Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

New theory about arrest
This page appears to be locked, could someone with editing privileges consider adding a line or two about this new theory resulting from research by the Anne Frank House Museum?

Thanks.

'Anne Frank may not have been betrayed to Nazi occupiers, but instead captured by chance, a new study has found.

The research published on Friday by the Anne Frank House museum in Amsterdam says despite decades of research, there is no conclusive evidence the Jewish diarist and her family were betrayed to the Netherlands' German occupiers during World War II, leading to their arrest and deportation.

Ronald Leopold, the executive director of the Anne Frank House museum, said in a statement that the study illustrated "that other scenarios should also be considered".

One possible theory is that the August 4, 1944, raid that led to Anne's arrest could have been part of an investigation into illegal labour or falsified ration coupons at the canal-side house where she and other Jews hid for just over two years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-17/anne-frank-betrayal-theory-in-doubt-after-new-study/8129338 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.237.96 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also on the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38349353 a very good case and it should be mentioned. 2600:8805:5800:F500:B17D:9CC4:CD19:D74 (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see now this was already here. Did Nazis find Anne Frank by chance, not betrayal?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SS-Oberscharführer Karl Silberbauer (the leader of the raid) said very clearly and repeatedly that the Franks were given away by an informant. That makes for a very solid case. As a result, any claims to the contrary should be supported by extraordinary sources. Speculation/hype by one researcher flogging a book does not qualify as extraordinary evidence. Rklawton (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request on 12 June, 2017
The third paragraph under 'Deportation and Death' section begins "With the other females not selected for immediate death..." - the noun is "women", as "females" is an adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.244.36.43 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Any standard dictionary will confirm that "female" is both an adjective and a noun. I presume the usage here is intended to be inclusive of both women and girls. If you think that the usage is problematic for some reason unrelated to parts of speech, please say so. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   00:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anne Frank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505051516/http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/anne-franks-diary-isnt-pornographic-20130501-2islf.html to http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/anne-franks-diary-isnt-pornographic-20130501-2islf.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327113617/http://bergen-belsen.stiftung-ng.de/de/geschichte/dp-camp/nothospital.html to http://bergen-belsen.stiftung-ng.de/de/geschichte/dp-camp/nothospital.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018
2601:601:9580:492A:D955:AB0C:72F4:FD6A (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 2601:601:9580:492A:D955:AB0C:72F4:FD6A (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. Please also see the reference in the article, currently ref 3, referring to the doubts over the exact date. - Arjayay (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Opening sentence and nationality
Wouldn't "German-Dutch" or "German-born Dutch" be more accurate? Most sources of course only describe her as Jewish and don't specify a nationality, but "German-born" is still a way of giving her one. I mean, an argument could definitely be made for it. She spent most of her life in Amsterdam, Dutch was her native language and she herself wished to officially adopt the nationality. While she was technically stateless, nationality isn't only about citizenship. I'm actually surprised this point hasn't come up yet. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, it was discussed at least twice before: 12 years ago and then again a year after that. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   04:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, I didn't mean to imply that she isn't German or that the word "German" should be omitted. I'm saying that it could be added that she was arguably both (in part). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood. Just thought you might not have seen those long-ago discussions. We really need to go with whatever the most reliable sources say. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Most sources on Anne Frank are focused on her diary and her life, and very few of them give only an overview of just one or a few sentences. Even fewer of those describe her nationality. Naturally, some sources are specifically more focused on what her nationality "should" be, but those are largely opinion pieces and not too helpful. The reason for mentioning her nationality is that it's a guideline for biographies. It gives some context that people unfamiliar with the subject might find helpful. To consult the Manual of Style:
 * "The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."
 * I'd argue that since she was a citizen of the Netherlands, and it was in the Netherlands that she became notable (because it's where she wrote her diary and hid from the Nazis), it would qualify as context. Again, just to be clear: I'm not talking about the "German-born" part. This is not about removing that. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How about writing she was a Immigrant to the Netherlands, fleeing out of Germany from the Nazis? --Kharon (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At present it should say, minimally, "German-born Dutch diarist" or "Dutch diarist of German-Jewish origin". "German-born diarist" is inadequate and misleading, as it could be understood to imply the diary is in German.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that, and I think you've made the change prematurely. Do we have a reliable source that she was Dutch? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   14:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Anne Frank was born in 1929 in Germany to parents of German nationality: she thus held German nationality; attempts of the tyranny to deprive her of it are Null and Void. Neither, in spite of her preferences was Dutch citizenship granted to her in her lifetime. It is now too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.27.26 (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that we should reflect what reliable sources say about Frank in this context rather than attempt to craft a "Wikipedia editor solution." Articles in reliable sources tend to describe her as a "Jewish teenager" and words to that effect and make no reference to her being "German-born" or to her Dutch nationality. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, Britannica refers to her as a "Jewish girl" in the lede, and as "German diarist" in their infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Anne Frank Museum's "In Brief" section refers to her as a "Jewish girl". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect's "About Anne" section refers to her as "a German-Jewish teenager". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Dictionary of Jewish Biography refers to her as a "Dutch diarist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The US Holocaust Museum skirts the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yad Vashem refers to her as "Dutch." I wonder if perhaps the best approach, assuming the reliable sources are scattered, is for us to avoid the issue entirely in the lead. It's not necessary for us to label her up top. Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to the opinion that using "Jewish" up top is most appropriate, as it really is the core of the matter. Her provenance (born in Germany, moved to the Netherlands) can he dealt with shortly after that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad there's a discussion, and some sources have been found.

But I'd like to say it was inappropriate to revert me without doing it properly. Because I did not get a revert notice, I am only now finding out there's a discussion at all, so I'm late contributing to it. Reverting "on the sly" is a way of avoiding having to deal with the consequences of reverting. It goes against the whole spirit of WP:BRD if you effectively leave the person out of the discussion whose edit you boldly reverted--don't you think? I know there are some touchy editors out there who get into edit wars but there are ways and means of dealing with them, up to and including reporting them for disruptive editing. Have a look at my own edit history, I've never been like that. The last time someone tried to start one with me, I just walked away, life being too short and all that.


 * So, getting to the topic at hand\: identifying her by her ethnicity first acturally goes against biography guidelines ("Jewish" is not a citizenship), any more than "Roma" would be. You seem to have come to the conclusion that the sources somehow contradict each other when they don't. The sources simply identify or emphasize different aspects of her identity: that she was born in Germany but that at a later point she emigrated with her family to the Netherlands (became "Dutch"). If you still have a problem with that, then, with respect to sources, what do you think of "diarist raised in the Netherlands by a Jewish family of German origin"? Surely that's a more informative description than "German-born diarist"? Again, it makes no comment about citizenship. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) We don't do "revert notices", and the edit summary specifically pointed to a discussion on the talk page. WP:BRD doesn't say anything about notifying an editor before reverting, it simply says that after you revert, a discussion should be started.  That has occurred, so you do not have a legitimate complaint.  Please retract your "revert on the sly" comment, as it is totally without merit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Her ethnicity was the reason she went into hiding, which is why there is a diary and why she is notable. I think in terms of emphasis it's the most appropriate phraseology for the lead. Her place of birth and citizenship are secondary and are dealt with within the body of the article in full. Coretheapple (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely, that's why I referred to it as "the core of the matter". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Without wanting this dicussion to go on a tangent, please allow me to clarify the nature of my objection (for everyone else). It had nothing to do with BRD and nothing to do with sending out a "revert notice". Those occur automatically when you actually revert, i.e., use the revert option to revert the article to the way it was prior to the last edit (or series of edits). What you did was revert by hand, which is slower and more tedious, but does not result in the last editor gettig a notification of what you've done. Hence my description of it as being "on the sly". There is no logical reason why someone would not do the easy thing, simply use the revert button, in this instance, other than they don't want the last editor to know they've been reverted. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your complaint is still without merit, and you should still withdraw it. How a change is made is completely irrelevant, and highly dependent on what an editor is doing, and what they feel most comfortable with. To claim that User:Rivertorch deliberately used a more "tedious" method of reverting your edit in order to avoid the system sending you an automatic notice is an astonishing example of assuming bad faith of an editor who has been here for 11 years and has over 24,000 edits.  (He also has a clean block log, which is more than I can say.)  In my opinion, you owe them an apology, but, more importantly, you should get your mind straight that there was nothing in any way illicit with their edit.  If you have an interest in this article, put it on your watchlist, and you'll see when any changes are made to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ZarhanFastfire, I didn't understand your reference to "revert notice" when you first mentioned it, and now that you've explained it I have to say I agree that it's best that you drop it. Pushing the undo button and reverting in some other way is totally equivalent, and it's far-fetched to suggest that somebody was trying to avoid scrutiny by so doing. Coretheapple (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-reading some of what I've written, I see I've inadvertently misread a couple of things you've said, and am in no doubt that I am coming across as incoherent (for instance: I misread your use of BRD as referring to BLP for some reason instead of BRD, so then I go and say I wasn't talking about BRD (thinking BLP) when I obviously was). That being the case, since I cannot trust my own judgement in the short term, and, in the interest of keeping things on-topic and and not about me, I'm withdrawing from the discussion. Besides, my feeling is that at present, anything I suggest (even if it were sensible) is a lot more likely to be rejected simply because it's coming from me; I'm saying that because that's human nature, not because I think any of you would be consciously acting in bad faith, but because I've obviously ruffled some feathers in my haste. I apologize for my misreadings and misstatements, as the last thing I want is for an article as important as this to be side-tracked for any reason. I have had an abiding interest in the Diary and the diarist since I went to the Anne Frank and You exhibition in Bournemouth some six or seven years ago, prompting me to read the diary (in English) and from time to time read this article as it has been updated. It may be the tragedy of this girl's life makes me too emotional and I'm better off not getting involved in editing it, full stop (what prompted me to come here in this instance was a documentary about her suffering in Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, so, perhaps not the best frame of mind all along). In closing, I did not (at least in my first objection) mean to imply the editor necssarily acted in bad faith. In my attempt at clarification, however, in the heat of the moment, I overstated the matter. I wish you all the best. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of my comments directed at you was not to drive you away from the discussion: you've expressed a legitimate opinion, and it should be considered when consensus is determined. I happen to disagree with it, but that's neither here nor there, and is not related to the other matter. If you have more to say on the substantive issue, please feel free to do so, as far as I am concerned. I think it's worthwhile to hat the discussion on the side-issue, to keep things focused.  If anyone objects, they can undo it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So, I think you have to look at the crux of the subject. The essence of the Anne Frank story is this: Anne Frank was a girl who went into hiding with her family to avoid being arrested by the Nazis and put into a concentration camp. She wrote a diary of her life which had a profound effect on many people.  So -- why?  Was she hiding because she was German?  Because she was Dutch?  Because she and her family were Communists?  Because she was a Jehovah's Witness? No, the reason she was hiding, the reason the Nazis wanted to put them into a concentration camp is because she and her family were Jewish, and that, as they say in the newspaper biz, is the lead.  After giving that essential information, then her place of birth, why she didn't live there anymore, the place where she was living when the important facts took place, all of that can be dealt with, but there's no story there if one doesn't say right up front that she was Jewish.Sure, absolutely, one can imagine a similar story being about a French Communist girl, or someone who is Roma, or a the child of a gay couple, or about any of the many other peoples the Nazis were trying to get rid of (but none more so than the Jews), and if the article were about one of those other people, the essential aspect of that person's reason for being hunted should also be right up front in the article.  In this case, it's because she was Jewish.  I don't think there's anyway around that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Anne was born in Frankfurt in 1929 to parents who were both German citizens. The family moved to The Netherlands when she was four. They became stateless under the "Eleventh Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law" promulgated November 1941, which stripped German Jews who had fled the country of their German citizenship.(source) So she was never a Dutch citizen. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dianaa. Clearly we can't call her a "Dutch" diarist etc. Well, perhaps we can skirt the issue by utilizing this language from a previous version. Mind you, that was quite some time ago and the stable version of this article does refer to her as "German-born," so we would have to come to a new consensus. I agree with BMK's position stated above. I agree that "German-born" is inappropriate considering the reason for her notability and the fact that she is generally not viewed as a German writer. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * describes her as a "German-born Jewish girl". Perhaps we can come up with a version that uses a variation of that wording? how about "...was a German-born Jewish diarist. One of the most discussed victims of the Holocaust, she gained fame posthumously with the publication of... — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I agree with Beyond My Ken that it's important to say up front that she was Jewish. I don't think it's essential that we say she was German-born in the lead sentence, but I have no objection to it. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   18:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that she was only four years old at the time she moved to Amsterdam, it does seem a bit overemphasis to indicate that she was born in Germany in the lead sentence, especially considering that she was not a German citizen and indeed was stripped of her citizenship. If I understand the facts correctly (Dianaa please correct me if I'm wrong), she was not a Dutch citizen either and in effect was stateless. Glad that this small but important detail has been raised; sometimes i things like this are overlooked or not given sufficient attention. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think all this information - born in Germany, stripped of citizenship, moved when she was four, resident in the Netherlands, everything that was said above - is all very important and should be in the lede, fairly close to the start, but I think it complicates and dilutes matters a bit to try to shoehorn it into the initial description of who she was. This is why I continue to favor the simple "Jewish girl" or "teenage Jewish diarist" or words to that effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I agree. Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree. (Said I wouldn't but here I am. Happy Thanksgiving to any Canadians.) As has been said above, she has multiple affiliations but perhaps for the purposes of English Wikipedia, it is apposite to emphasize what makes her notable as reflected in the title of her work: a teenage diarist of highest quality and victim of the Holocaust, which together are why her diary is both notable and even at one time controversial because of the denials of authenticity. I second removing "German-born" from the sentence I originally modified, rather than attempting to achieve consensus over the use of both Dutch and German affiliations at the same time (which reliable sources both support but perhaps are hard to work out elegantly in one line); but let us please not have one be privileged over the other when sources point at both. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why it's important: Today, a refugee crisis exists originating in Syria, and some people wish to exclude Syrian refugees because perpetrators are also Syrian. To me, that sounds very similar to denying the Frank's refuge because they, like the Nazis, were German. That was reportedly the rationale for the United States denying them refuge.Don&#39;t Be Evil (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. What are you proposing for the article? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading
Anne Frank loved reading!99.13.18.20 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article mentions that she spent her time reading and studying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

US immigration - they were not denied entry
The article says that the Franks were denied entry to the USA. However, according to a recent investigation by Anne Frank House, their visa request was never processed. See this story in a reliable source. It shouldn't be hard to locate the investigation report too. Zerotalk 11:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018
Just one period that requires editing consideration; Anne's last days of typhus may have resulted in her being murdered. Medication or etc. AnthonyHendraSanto (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018
--Jedimaster123456 (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Jedimaster123456 (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC) I believe you should add as to how she was treated in the concentration camp and her feelings when leaving her "hide out" you should put she had a love interest in peter and that she was also a brat. you need to be honest with why we still read her diary today not because it was during world war II but because we are similar to her we acted as she did while we were children we favorited our parents we "rebelled against them" we are so very similar. i believe you should add how and why we still read her diary today.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018
Recently Anne was mentioned in an influential song by a famous artist known by the name Deji. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3HhNrRTNWg&safe=true 82.219.7.5 (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Content Policy?
Toward the bottom of the page, there is a box with different portal links. The first one listed is Judaism portal, and directly below that is listed the Nazi Germany portal. While it makes sense that both portals are listed in the same section, it is bad taste to have those two links side-by-side.--98.116.168.26 (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There are to many portals claiming responsibility here for sure. Regarding "taste": Its a case of excessive political correctness. People who are offended being remembered cant expect to read articles about it that do not touch their memories. It touches almost every Human.


 * Beside i wonder what use the category:People of the Weimar Republic has, because Anne was just 3 1/2 years old when Hitler took over. She was a "toddler of the Weimar Republic". --Kharon (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we just put the Nazi Germany portal at the bottom of the list?--98.116.168.26 (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Milk Hotel
I was wondering if I could add a mention of the American indie rock band Neutral Milk Hotel under the 'Legacy' heading. Neutral Milk Hotel's album In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is largely inspired by and continuously alludes to Anne Frank and her story.

My reasoning behind this is that the album has both carried on Anne's legacy in the form of music and also created new readers. This is evident through the 4chan board /mu/; many users of this board have been drawn to researching her story and reading her book through listening to the album and analysing its influence and message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Pedic (talk • contribs)


 * This might make a good addition if there's been any coverage in reliable sources that the album has led to renewed interest in Frank's work. I'm not finding anything myself. -- Dianna (talk)

Article Review
[removed paragraph]

Review
This article is very well-written and very detailed. For a deceased person, there is a lot of sources and references used to give that extra background knowledge of the reliability of the information. The article goes above and beyond Anne Frank's own life to give you information about her family as well. It was very interesting to learn how her father, Otto was the only surviving member of the Frank family and how he came to publish the diary as it accurately envisioned their life during the war.

Watsherm (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think perhaps you were supposed to create (and thought you were creating) this review in a sandbox, not on the article's general Talk page, as part of your assignment. This page is not a sandbox.  General Ization Talk  20:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:General Ization, students were supposed to put their evaluation on the article talk page, though I now question the wisdom of that. (This is part of a fairly standard Wiki.edu assignment). I think next time I will keep it in user space. Then again, the review another student left on Talk:Alpha Phi Alpha can be useful for other editors. Watsherm, I don't know why you copied that paragraph (I removed it since I thought it confusing on this talk page). The things you point out, that there's family information, that's part of writing a good biography. Now, that this was interesting isn't really evaluative. As I indicated, I am interested in hearing about tone, sourcing, completeness, reliability, layout, etc. If, for instance, the information about Otto Frank was news to you, then a lot of other things were probably news also, and that means maybe you should review another article, one a topic you're more familiar with. Plus, this article is an FA, so chances are it's good. I might add that I think the article is a bit too friendly toward Otto, who really went to great lengths to clean up the child's legacy, and that it omits widespread speculation about her sexuality, with a lot of sources saying the diary indicates she had serious lesbian leanings. Anyway--this is a start, but I strongly suggest that you consider finding another article to write a more substantial review on. Dr Aaij (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019
Anne Frank's sexuality in light of the Unabridged version of her diary

In the unabridged versions, there are passage where Anne express a "strong desire to kiss", being "terribly inquisitive" and touch the breasts of a girl she slept with; express that she had "ecstasies when I see a naked figure of a woman" and express that "if only she has a girlfriend". I think that warranted a mention in the Unabridged version something along the line of "description of her exploration of her own genitalia and her sexual fascination with the female bodies, puzzlement regarding sex and childbirth" as well as tag her appropriately (LGBT people from Germany?) (https://archive.org/stream/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl_201606/Anne-Frank-The-Diary-Of-A-Young-Girl_djvu.txt) Thursday, January 6, 1944 2600:8807:8180:7010:6DDD:53F8:1FB7:A4FF (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:WEIGHT. This is nothing more than the normal sexual development of a young girl, and not worthy of note. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If not tagged her in the LGBT-related tag, should that atleast be mentioned among the sections that Otto omitted from her diary? The articles mentioned exploration of her own gentalia and questions regarding sex and childbirth, afterall. I think sexual fascination and fantasy about the female bodies falls into that list.
 * No, the current description sufficiently covers it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppory Beyond my Ken here. Undue etc. Zezen (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction: Who took the phone call leading to arrest?
This article under the heading Arrest says: Karl Silberbauer, the SS officer who received the phone call and made the arrest, was documented to say that the informer had "the voice of a young woman". The reference for this statement seems to be a news article promoting a book.

On the other hand the articles Karl Silberbauer and Julius Dettmann both state it was Dettmann who took the call, and therefore Silberbauer was unable to say anything about the informer except that Dettmann had told him the information came from "a reliable source". The reference for this statement seems to be a privately maintained website.

Can anyone rule out one of the two contradicting versions as wrong? Otherwise this article should be updated to point out the contradiction. --84.173.227.113 (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither version seems to be well-supported by references from reliable sources. Anyone have something like, I don't know, a book published by a commercial or academic publisher and written by a historian, which identifies who took the call? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have very little trust in version 1. It comes from a book written 71 years after the arrests - how likely is it to come up with groundbreaking new information after that time, Silberbauer died 43 years and Nelly Voskuijl, the alledged betrayer, 14 years before the book came out. When a journalist releases a book almost exactly 70 years after Anne Frank's death, with "Silence No More" as the title and a news article headlining "Book identifies betrayer" this is of course bound to stir up some publicity, making this book probably sell a lot better than if the author had named it "We Still Don't Know What Happened". So I see some clear incentive to overplay speculation as fact to push sales.
 * The Anne Frank Foundation has released a quite comprehensive and balanced article on this question, and I trust their objectivity a lot more, because they're not trying to sell anything. And under section 1b they all but debunk version 1 i.e. the journalist's version of events, saying "The story about the female voice came from someone who allegedly told Otto Frank about it. However, there is no evidence to this effect." and also saying that Dettmann took the alledged call.
 * However under section 1a they also admit version 2 in this Wiki's Silberbauer and Dettmann articles is not certain, either, as Silberbauer gave several contradicting statements on this matter over time and Dettmann could never be asked.
 * The Anne Frank Foundation article mentioned above is a very interesting read. The Foundation has also published this 5 page research article on the possibility there had been no betrayal in the first place and this 37 page complete investigative report IMHO all this Wiki can do is present the different theories while clearly pointing out the contradictions and inconsistencies and stating that the truth can likely never be found. --84.173.231.122 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Research can uncover new information hundreds of years after events had occurred, so 71 years is no particular reason to reject a book. If the information is factual (I have no idea if it is) then it's factual, however many years it took to find it out.  And the Anne Frank Foundation is most certainly selling something -- they're selling their version of who Anne Frank was, and have a great deal tied up in that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankfurt am Main
At the time of her birth Frankfurt am Main was part of Prussia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.146.186 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019
==Further reading==
 * Alex Mertens (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. There are already dozens of books, which is likely already way too many.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020
Annelies Marie "Anne" Frank was born in 12 June 1929 – February or March 1945)[3] was a German-born Dutch-Jewish diarist. One of the most discussed Jewish victims of the Holocaust, she gained fame posthumously with the publication of The Diary of a Young Girl (originally Het Achterhuis in Dutch; English: The Secret Annex), in which she documents her life in hiding from 1942 to 1944, during the German occupation of the Netherlands in World War II. It is one of the world's best known books and has been the basis for several plays and films. Born in Frankfurt, Germany, she lived most of her life in or near Amsterdam, Netherlands, having moved there with her family at the age of four and a half when the Nazis gained control over Germany. Born a German national, she lost her citizenship in 1941 and thus became stateless. By May 1940, the Franks were trapped in Amsterdam by the German occupation of the Netherlands. As persecutions of the Jewish population increased in July 1942, the Franks went into hiding in some concealed rooms behind a bookcase in the building where Anne's father, Otto Frank, worked. From then until the family's arrest by the Gestapo in August 1944, she kept a diary she had received as a birthday present, and wrote in it regularly. Following their arrest, the Franks were transported to concentration camps. In October or November 1944, Anne and her sister, Margot, were transferred from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, where they died (probably of typhus) a few months later. They were originally estimated by the Red Cross to have died in March, with Dutch authorities setting 31 March as their official date of death, but research by the Anne Frank House in 2015 suggests it is more likely that they died in February.[3] Otto, the only survivor of the Franks, returned to Amsterdam after the war to find that her diary had been saved by his secretary, Miep Gies, and his efforts led to its publication in 1947. It was translated from its original Dutch version and first published in English in 1952 as The Diary of a Young Girl, and has since been translated into over 70 languages. 121.210.56.187 (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The only change in this text is removing the IPA and writing "was born in" instead. Our articles usually begin with birth dates in parentheses. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

First name or surname
Much of this article Anne Frank is referred to by her surname only. I'd like to suggest several reasons why that's inappropriate. She's a child, and children are normally addressed by their first name. Whilst this article is about Anne Frank the content is interconnected to other members of her family who naturally are part of the story too so the exclusive use of her surname could be jarring or confusing. Also, she's a victim, criminals are referred to by their surnames but not victims. I don't know what the WP guidelines on referring to subjects by first, full or surname are, perhaps someone can assist there. The style seems to vary throughout Wikipedia. So can we change it to Anne throughout? Hmcst1 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of relevant stuff at MOS:BIO. Zerotalk 00:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hmcst1, it’s particularly unseemly because “Frank” is an extremely common man’s forename in the Anglophone world. It should be changed to Anne Glen Gormley (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of “speculative content”
Not sure why a summary of a book is “speculative content”, see WP:BOOK, why was this was removed. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Not an ideal place for it, but that's where it happened. I'd like to see a reason for including it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the most we should even get close to mentioning it is a small, short reference to the fact that (I believe, I'd have to research this again) that it's (the passages about her kissing girls) one of the passages added in the 1995 version of the book and was omitted from the original (both German and English). Again I'd have to research that again, and even then, that's covered on the basis of what's already there. Other than that, everything else, speculating about her sexuality, is OR, especially since she only wrote about it once and never commented on it again. QueerFilmNerd  talk 09:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that it should be kept. It's not really speculative at all. It's her having desires for other women. There is proof in her book, the definitive version, where it does not have anything omitted. I feel it's important to list those events. Re1ny.Dev (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Our standard for inclusion is not "User Re1ny.Dev thinks that it should be kept". Our standard is found at WP:WEIGHT. which clearly states


 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."


 * You have not provided a reliable secondary source that supports your edits. Per WP:REPUTABLE,
 * "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." (emphasis added).
 * Also see WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Multiple editors have reverted your edits. Please seek consensus on the associated article talk pages instead of edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reverting my edits, I will stop and try to make a consensus. I thought Anne's diary is a very reliable source and Pink News is pretty reliable as well. I've searched up how reliable they are and it stated that they are "mostly factual." There is significant proof for Anne's attraction to women, as seen on page 162 in her Diary (Definitive edition). This isn't really mi opinion, it's just an obvious fact that she liked women as well, so I don't see why we can't add that on here. Isn't Wikipedia used to help people learn things about a topic or person? We shouldn't have to cut out anything, we should state what the book talked about and include the summary of the Definitive edition, as it isn't even available in Anne's wikipedia page. Re1ny.Dev (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I agree about “Weight”. Article mentions her boyfriend and that she dumped him, maybe we could add a little about her sexuality there? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What source are you proposing using? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Anne Frank has an article for reasons that have nothing to do with her sexuality. If it is to be mentioned, it will be a minor part of the article, not three or four substantial slabs of text. It's also important that any mention doesn't include expressions like "could very well mean" or "could have" in relation to being bisexual. Those expressions were what actually drew my attention to this issue. They make the statements purely speculative, and do not reflect claims above of anything being proven or factual. Nothing is proven, nor can anything be claimed as fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

So, HiLo48 actually ended up wording a lot of what I thought! But, my two cents on why it's okay to mention Peter is that, from her writing, it's pretty clear that they were together and that she was attracted to him. There is absolutely no speculation. On the other hand, writing about Anne being queer or bisexual or LGBT+ in some way is. As she only had one passage about it, any wording that says "could very well mean" or other wording (as HiLo said) is speculating on a topic we don't really know about. If, in the future by chance, more passages of her discussing her attraction to girls just happens to come out, then we can revisit the subject, but for now, it should just be a short statement, stating it was originally in her diary but part of the content removed for the original publication and then added again for the 1995 edition, and that it later became part of the controversy from a couple years back. Definitively labelling Anne's sexuality is OR and inappropriate considering the information we have. QueerFilmNerd talk 22:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is all reasonable and I also think that is better than what I put on there, for which I am sorry for. I should've consulted with others and not just paste it onto Anne's wikipedia page. Re1ny.Dev (talk) 24:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet, one hour after writing the above, you once again pasted your original research into The Diary of a Young Girl. You are still relying on your reading of your reading of a translation of one version of the source material despite having our policies on original research explained to you multiple times. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020
In the "Publication" section, I was wondering if I can change the sentence "He removed certain passages, most notably those in which Anne is critical of her parents (especially her mother), and sections that discussed Anne's growing sexuality." to "He removed certain passages, most notably those in which Anne is critical of her parents (especially her mother), and sections that discussed Anne's growing sexuality and her attraction to females. Anne wrote "Once when I was spending the night at Jacque's, I could no longer restrain my curiosity about her body, which she'd always hidden from me and which I'd never seen. I asked her whether, as proof of our frendiship, we could touch each other's breasts. Jacque refused. I also had a terrible desire to kiss her, which I did. Every time I see a female nude, such as the Venus in my art history book, I go into ecstasy. Sometimes I find them so exquisite I have to struggle to hold back my tears. If only I had a girlfriend!", showing Anne's attraction to Jacque.

I would also like to add the category at the category section: LGBT people from Germany and Bisexual women

I think it is more specific and gives representation for bisexual people and maybe help people who are questioning their sexuality and make them recognize that they are not the only ones who went through it. They would realize that even the wonderful Anne Frank went through what they went through. It would be a small hint of Anne's sexuality. Re1ny.Dev (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be preferable to use a better source (book or journal) for his father having removed this passage – there's no shortage of reliable sources about her. The quote might be too long (WP:DUE). – Thjarkur (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Asked and answered. If you wish to add anything along these lines, please establish a consensus first before making such an edit request.  More importantly, your reasoning is worrying: "... and maybe help people who are questioning their sexuality and make them recognize that they are not the only ones who went through it."  No no no.  Wikipedia articles are not here to give moral support to people.  They're here to document. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Pink News is the ONLY secondary source that has any mention of this at all, and Pink News is famous for trying to depict as many historical figures as being gay as it possibly can, no matter how tenuous the evidence. The other ref is to the diary itself, which is OR using a primary source. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020
Hello, I'd like to add how Anne Frank was bisexual because it might help people who are questioning their sexuality to know that even the great Anne Frank was bisexual. In Anne Frank's biography, The Diary of a Young Girl, there was a line on the date "Thursday, January 6, 1944" near the end of the date, which stated "Unconsciously, I had these feelings even before I came here. Once when I was spending the night at Jacque's, I could no longer restrain my curiosity about her body, which she'd always hidden from me and which I'd never seen. I asked her whether, as proof of our frendiship, we could touch each other's breasts. Jacque refused. I also had a terrible desire to kiss her, which I did. Every time I see a female nude, such as the Venus in my art history book, I go into ecstasy. Sometimes I find them so exquisite I have to struggle to hold back my tears. If only I had a girlfriend!" It clearly stated that she has sexual interests in women like her friend, Jacque, and Venus. According to PinkNews, Anne Frank was attracted to girls, which they got from Franke's diary. However, some editions of the book had been edited to remove those lines because of the LGBT and bisexual writings. On some books, it is on page. On "Sunday, 16 April, 1944," she wrote how she kissed Peter, her first kiss. "Remember yesterday's date, because it was special for me. When a girl gets her first kiss, it's always an important date. Last night, I was sitting with peter on his sofa-bed, and he soon put his arm around me. I put my arm round him too, and we sat very close. We've sat like this before, but never as close as we were last night. He wanted me to put my head on his shoulder, then he rested his head on mine. Oh, it was so wonderful! He touched my cheek, my arm and my hair."

If this gets approved, I would very ecstatic and happy to help the Wikipedia have more information! But if it doesn't, I understand and I hope the person/people reading this a great day or night! Re1ny.Dev (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A handful of passages from Anne's diary, to me at least, is not enough to label her sexuality. If there had been other writings by Anne about her sexuality, then yes, but I don't believe it would warrant us to label her sexuality. Both this page and the page for the book both make note of passages that were later added that include topics such as sexuality, but I do not believe there is enough to warrant any further addition.  QueerFilmNerd  talk 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * PinkNews is an unreliable source. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Full first name
Is it annelise or annelisse?Thebaconhalrguru (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither. The full name is Annelies Marie Frank. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Add the fact they didn't really follow Jewish traditions much please
173.216.5.223 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems that would need a bit of explanation and referencing. Vsmith (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Already in the article: "The Franks were liberal Jews, and did not observe all of the customs and traditions of Judaism." Alas, the Nazis didn't care whether a Jew was observant. They just wanted to kill them all. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

related movie
Someone should create an article for #Anne Frank Parallel Stories.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , should they? Can't you?  Cassianto Talk  16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Recipient of tip-off call
"Karl Silberbauer, the SS officer who received the phone call and made the arrest, was documented to say that the informer had "the voice of a young woman"." This sentence is in the article, and there's a citation that says the same. However, the articles for Silberbauer and his superior Julius Dettmann both say it was Dettmann who took the call. I'm not in a position to say which is right, but I thought I'd log this discrepancy. HornetMike (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)