Talk:The Diary of a Young Girl/Archive 1

Silberbauer is a Weak Witness
Silberbauer can only attest to the events that occurred on the day of the arrest. There is nothing to indicate that he had any knowledge of what had occurred before. Therefore, he would have no way of knowing whether the statements in the diary are accurate. Also, even if he saw papers on the day of arrest, there is no positive statement that Silberbauer actually read them, so we cannot know that what he saw then is the same document that exists today.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Genre?
High Fantasy ? Has Nick Griffin been editing this page? Seriouslythelastnameleft (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Autobiography?! How many hands she had, 8? Some of them able to write post mortem! Shame... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.238.82 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Title?
The diary of anne frank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.121.1 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that's the title of the film/play, and this is about the published version of the diary. feba 05:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Page move
The actual title of the work is "The Diary of a Young Girl," and it's by Anne Frank. Just because the name is not so well known and the author's name is blown up to larger size on some covers doesn't actually change the name. If you really think that the name should be changed anyway, I'd recommend going to WP:RM. SnowFire 03:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

do you see how anyone can just edit?? this is not safe and reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.223.22 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To add to the confusion there are several English language editions that give the title on the cover as "The Diary of Anne Frank" though I'm not sure what appears on the inside front page. I presume this is because the adaptations have popularised the title. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no "actual title". It was first published as Het Achterhuis (The Backhouse). It appeared in English as The Diary of a Young Girl, when Frank's name was largely unknown. When her name became famous it was published as The Diary of Anne Frank. These are all the "actual title". None can claim to be more real than the other since the diary itself had no title. According to WP policy the most commonly known title should be used. Paul B (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Timrollpickering and Paul Barlow. I am surprised that this article is not at its most WP:Common name (The Diary of Anne Frank). Flyer22 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm likely to start a move request about this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrites
I am a little unclear about all these "rewrites" that are mentioned here. Did Anne Frank rewrite her own diary? If so, when? Also there's not much about the content of the diaries in here. It would be nice to have a little summary for those of us who haven't had the chance to read it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.64.25.3 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article can answer your question about Anne Frank's revisions: "Anne Frank ... heard a broadcast made by the exiled Dutch Minister for Education, Art and Science, Gerrit Bolkestein, calling for the preservation of "ordinary documents—a diary, letters ... simple everyday material" to create an archive for posterity as testimony to the suffering of civilians during the Nazi occupation, and on May 20 1944 notes that she has started re-drafting her diary with future readers in mind. She expanded entries and standardized them by addressing all of them to Kitty, clarified situations, prepared a list of pseudonyms and cut scenes she thought of little interest or too intimate for general consumption." A summary of the period chronicled in her diary can be found at Anne Frank. Yallery Brown 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will work on a synopsis of the book. It will give me a good excuse to read it again. Watch this space!Codenamemary (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DiaryofAFrank.jpg
Image:DiaryofAFrank.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Length of criticism
I believe the length of the criticism is far too long given the length of the article. It is somewhat redundant and is seemingly only about demonstrating how holocaust deniers attack the authenticity of the book. While I feel it certainly does have a place within the article, I feel it should be shorter. Does anybody agree? I question whether the article needs the history of how it was verified to such detail Canking 01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The section on the attacks by Holocaust deniers isn't intended to act as a survey of general criticism of Anne Frank's diary, but to highlight an important and somewhat neglected aspect of its history in the pubic domain. One of the reasons there's such a detailed section on the history of the smear campaign against Anne Frank and her diary is that editors like me have spent a lot of time on Wiki (here and on the Anne Frank talk page) reverting edits and replying to statements from editors who want to allege that the diary is inauthentic. The statements generally cover the same ground and always insinuate that if, as they believe, the diary is fake, there's enough grounds to question the historical fact of the Holocaust. Editors who makes these statements tend not to be aware that these allegations been made and refuted many times, have a long legal history and have been challenged successfully in European courts. Interestingly the attacks here on Wiki on the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank have declined since this section was lengthened. For these reasons, I think it should stay.

Yallery Brown 12:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust, both as it relates to the Jewish people, and to all others who suffered and died in the Second World War, is real, and that question is entirely independent from the issue of the diary's authenticity. Suppressing the discussion, as seems to be the case in Europe, is inconsistent with democratic traditions, particularly in the United States. John Paul Parks (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Different Editions?
I was looking at the section in the article called "Editorial History." It is quite small for an article about a well-known book, and doesn't even mention the definitive edition of the novel. Does anyone else think it should be expanded? Ebo666 Villa (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Original notebooks
Do the original notebooks still exist? Are they located somewhere? Ctbolt (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "... after Otto Frank's death in 1980 ... In his will, Otto Frank bequeathed his daughter's manuscripts to the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, who commissioned a forensic study to determine when the manuscripts had been prepared, and by whom. The glue, paper and other materials used in the original notebooks ..." From the above, I think it reasonable to conclude that the originals are still at the Institute.SlowJog (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How would an examination of the glue, the paper, and the other materials shed any light on WHO wrote the manuscripts?John Paul Parks (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they also compared the handwriting in the diary/manuscripts to samples of other things Miss Frank had written.Codenamemary (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Full-length choral work based on the Diary of Anne Frank - Annelies
In doing some work for WikiProject: Unreferenced Article Cleanup, I found this article Annelies which is a full-length choral work based on the Diary of Anne Frank. It would seem that this should be included somewhere in the main article The Diary of a Young Girl. Since I am not that familiar with the subject matter would another editor who has worked on The Diary of a Young Girl like to include a note about this choral work? Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a mention of this in the lead.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation - is it needed?
There is a link to a disambiguation page which does not exist at the top of the article, I should think that the article would look better if it was removed. Any comments? --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Television coverage
I think that this article should mention the series that appeared on BBC One in 2009 entitled "The Diary of Anne Frank". Correspondence in the Radio Times about this programme has been  positive. Perhaps there could even be a new article on this series. What do other Wikipedians think?

Any feedback will be received with interest. Many thanks in advance for any responses. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" section refutes criticism ambiguously
The "Criticism of the Diary" section sums up the response to the critics thusly: "The investigation revealed that all of the entries in the published version were accurate transcriptions of manuscript entries in Anne Frank's handwriting, and that they represented approximately a third of the material collected for the initial publication." (emphasis mine) This raises more questions than it answers, since it appears to say that only about 33% of the material in the " The Diary... " is from Anne Frank's hand. Note that this claim is not sourced in the entry. Can someone familiar with the controversy (1) supply sources for the claim and (2) re-state the explanation of how much of the contents of " The Diary... " have been shown to be from Anne Frank's hand? Thanks. Bricology (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misinterpreted the admittedly convoluted sentence. The claim is that only 33% of the material collected was actually used in the initial publication, which seems reasonable. Sections that wouldn't interest people, or were deemed unfit for publication, were not published at the time. In no way does it say that only 33% of the material in the published Diary was written by Anne Frank. All of the published entries were in Anne Frank's handwriting, but that additional unpublished material was gathered. 75.7.15.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Here is a possible source: www.annefrank.com/fileadmin/user_upload/teaachers_download/materialf_storyofdiary.doc it discusses in brief the story of the diary and Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie's investigation of the diary's authenticity. Another: http://www.annefrank.ch/index.php?page=739&printview=1 states RIOD's findings confirmed it's authenticity. Johnnyeagleisrocker (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a source from the New York Times which essentially renders this moot as it cites research done that concluded that all of the diary with 100% genuine, and written at the time. Do they collide (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

... in a ballpoint pen (not invented until after the diary was supposedly written) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you get your ideas, but ballpoint pens have been around for over 100 years. History Lunatic (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

Recent article in New York or L.A. Times?
I seem to remember reading a full page newspaper article within the last 6 months, which focused (favorably) on the actual writing technique/talent of Anne Frank. It had a full-color art illustration. The article discussed her rewriting of the material, and thought that that attention to editing and polishing indicated her literary seriousness. Did anyone else read this? I don't know if there's material in it that might add to the entry, but I'd like to check. I've done searches at the NY/LA Times sites, and don't see an article like that. Help? Codenamemary (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary
It is a well know book. It should have a sypnosis to some length. --99.244.14.231 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Composition
As I suspected, this article used to be a lot longer a long time ago. I found a large section (over 6K) that was inexplicably removed about a year and a half ago (by an anon, no less) but no one caught it. I think it still deserves to be in this article so I added it back where it used to be. For An Angel (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

criticism of holocaust deniers
Attacks_on_the_diary should be readded to the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl&diff=168212382&oldid=168212296#Attacks_on_the_diary

Igottheconch (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of this article
A few minutes ago I posted the following new section in this wiki article:

German lawsuits concerning claims of fabrication of the diary
The renowned German News Magazine "Der Spiegel" reported in 1980 that Anne Frank's father, Otto Frank, had litigated the Hamburg citizen Ernst Römer for "holocaust denial" (which is punishable in Germany), cause Ernst Römer had said that the diaries are a forgery. In the following legal proceedings the Hamburg Landgericht (regional court with 2 or 3 judges plus 2 lay judges) asked an expertise from the excellently equipped forensic laboratory of the Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Police Office (Germany), similar to the FBI) to determine the age of the diaries. The German FBI lab found beyond all doubts that some pages of the diaries were written with a ballpen ("blue paste") which was introduced in Europe only in 1951.

Already in 1960 the Hamburg court-appointed expert for graphology Minna Becker wrote in an expertise for the Lübeck Landgericht in another lawsuit, that all entries in all three diary books including all stuck in loose papers were written by the same person.

Following the laws of logic that means that "The Diary of Anne Frank" was written by a person, who was alive in 1951. Anne Frank died of typhus in March 1945.

reference: DER SPIEGEL 41/1980 page 119 "Blaue Paste" http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14317313.html

---

This was deleted within a few seconds and I got the following "justification" from the administrator: -- User talk:91.64.206.41 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Diary of a Young Girl, but we cannot accept

original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say.

Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Gilliam (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC) -- My contribution did not contain any original research. The SPIEGEL is even according Wikipedia the most renowned and internationally most read News Magazine of the world, especially famous for its investigative performance. I just translated into English in an abbreviated way what is explicitely written in the lengthy German SPIEGEL article, and I cited it even with a direct link to the full text (!) of the SPIEGEL article. 99% of the wikipedia articles don't have transparent and controllable sources like that. The SPIEGEL is a much more "reliable source" than most sources in the wikipedia. So the deletion smells like blatant censorship, because the administrator did not like it.

Additional Reference
I hesitate to edit this page because of its historical importance, and because I do not fully understand the rules on primary and secondary sources. I hope that someone better qualified than me will do so.

I read the "ballpoint" story on the web, and it took me less than ten minutes to find its refutation, in a document from the Anne Frank museum. The different versions of the diary were thoroughly investigated in the Netherlands; the earlier German BKA report was not carefully written and is open to misinterpretation.

http://www.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.pdf

212.159.102.166 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC) (KJN)

--

Requesting alteration of controversy section
The Controversy sections states that many people view the diary to be a forgery, but this is just a staple of holocaust denial which has been widely criticized for distorting scientific evidence. If we're going to reference that holocaust denialists view the diary as a forgery, we shouldn't make it look like the denialists make for a majority of society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism reports
A paragraph on the vandalism was added by. It is a pity that no one has explained the petty consequences although follow-up articles are available in English. --Nanshu (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

deleted a text fragment, just saying in the edit summary, "No support for "It has been known to librarians that Nazi-related books ...attract people with mental disorders". The sentence in question has an external source. What is not supported is the user's deletion. --Nanshu (talk)


 * Contrary to the assertion above, the was correct per WP principles of verifiability.


 * The commenter apparently missed, or chose not to include, the added 4 minutes later: "One article about an incident in Japan (otapol.jp/i/2014/02/post-594_entry.html) cannot be generalized this way."  In fact, the source referenced speaks only about incidents of this type in Tokyo, and nowhere else.  The phrase "It has been known to librarians... " is an unwarranted generalization that may be verifiable elsewhere but that is not supported by this source and thus constitutes original research in this form.


 * Rather than delete the sentence again (which would be my preference) I've modified it so as to make it clear that the source refers only to Tokyo. This isn't really ideal imho as the sentence in this form is now redundant with what is already stated earlier in the paragraph, but perhaps this is sufficient to achieve consensus. The source given is mostly a gaming site and contains little hard news, but in the absence of a reason to delete the source again I've left it in for now, and tagged it better source needed.  P.S. Please sign your entries with four tildes. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section
Skepticism about a unique text not be considered automatically as denial, whereas the Journal is not the sole evidence of the Holocaust; nor can it have the character of holy book on which a belief is based. There should be more open debate about the book, without necessarily linked to anti-Semitism and other forms of ideological expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.84.50.43 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The fact that a book that mainly was a commercial operation is a FAKE in some parts or in its entirety does NOT imply that there was no Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.134.241 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

_____

Requested move 4 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - stable at this title for 8 years and its a toss up on Common name given all the non-book stuff surrounding the Diary of Anne Frank. Status quo works fine here. Mike Cline (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Diary of a Young Girl → The Diary of Anne Frank – I cannot believe I am the first person to file a requested move, but it appears from a close perusal of the talk page archives that aside from an abortive attempt in 2013, I am. Anyway, I suspect there will be arguments for and against, but in brief summary - a Google search brings up a mix of terms, but prominently I see that the official website refers to it as The Diary of Anne Frank, a BBC adaptation uses the same, as does a PBS piece (the PBS one is important as it shows me this isn't just another UK / US argument like petrol gasoline), plus the various film adaptations suggest that this is the common name in English. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is about the book, not the film adaptations. The title should tell the reader the correct name of the book, which is either [ http://www.amazon.com/Diary-Young-Girl-Ann-Frank-ebook/dp/B0041OT9W6/ref= The Diary of a Young Girl] (2010) or [ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553296981/ref=rdr_ext_tmb Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl] ([ http://www.amazon.com/Ann-Frank-Diary-Young-Girl/dp/B000GQFRY2/ref=sr_1_4?s= 1972] and [ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553296981/ref=rdr_ext_tmb 1993]), depending on which edition you want to go by. Fernando Safety (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been some decades since I've read the book (certainly before Amazon even existed), but I have never personally seen a copy with that title. I have seen a German version approximating Das Tagersbuch der Anne Frank. When I am surprised by a redirect (which, for gasoline, I'm not) it's worth finding out why. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak support. There is definitely a mix. My look at what Amazon has for sale shows [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_p_n_feature_nine_bro_0?fst=as%3Aoff&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Adiary+anne+frank%2Cp_n_feature_nine_browse-bin%3A3291437011&keywords=diary+anne+frank&ie=UTF8&qid=1446649803&rnid=3291435011 a roughly 50/50 split], at least in the early results, between the two proposed titles. Further, this ngram shows that "Diary of Anne Frank" is more common in reliable sources. Since "Diary of Anne Frank" is more common, and probably more natural, the overall balance of WP:AT probably argues for that title. It's close, though. Dohn joe (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is mixing apples and oranges.  The Dairy of Anne Frank is the title of both a play and a film that appeared in the 1950s. The [ http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Frances-Goodrich-Albert-Hackett/dp/0822203073/ref=sr_1_sc_1? script of the play] is what Amazon is selling. Fernando Safety (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazon also sells [ http://www.amazon.com/Diary-Anne-Frank-Revised-Critical/dp/0385508476/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446735156&sr=1-2&keywords=diary+anne+frank&refinements=p_n_feature_nine_browse-bin%3A3291437011 this]. Many, but not all, of the works titled "Diary of Anne Frank" are the play/film. Same with the ngram/Google Books results. A significant percentage of reliable sources refer to the writings as the "Diary of Anne Frank" - we just reflect what the sources tell us. Dohn joe (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The edition you refer to has a different title than other editions because it has additional material that the other editions don't have. It wouldn't make sense to title the article The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition. Surely most readers expect the title of the article to be the actual name of the book. To give something else as the title is to provide misinformation. I know many people confuse the book and the film. That makes it all the more important to keep the two straight. Fernando Safety (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, after going through Wikipedia's pages and the references on this page it seems the present title is the most accurate after its initial publication. It also is the title used in the various lists of "100 best books of the 20th century". Another page here, on the radio play, is the one that seems misnamed (although the first mention gets it right). That page should probably be renamed to Anne Frank: Diary of a Young Girl ( per the website on the radio play, this page in particular). It seems the name The Diary of Anne Frank became known and popularized only from the 1955 stage play and the 1959 film, but the publication name previous to that was Diary of a Young Girl. Randy Kryn 19:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That said... ...I wouldn't be surprised if the move goes forward, as it seems the now-common name, although, as Fernando Safety points out, just not the correct one. Randy Kryn 3:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The "correct" name is whatever name is used by reliable sources. That's especially true in this kind of case, where the author did not name her own work - different publishers have felt free to title it differently. Dohn joe (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose we are missing an article. There should be an article about the actual diary of Anne Frank, and not the book based on the diary which is this article. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, at school the book we studied was The Diary of Anne Frank, I never knew it as the present article name. also, why doesn't the article name reflect the 1st ed. title The Annex: Diary Notes (or is that journal letters?) 14 June 1942 – 1 August 1944? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The first English language edition was The Diary of a Young Girl (1952). Fernando Safety (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How to find deleted passages?
Are there available anywhere on line, or in print? Historian932 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The text not published in the original versions can be found in the critical versions: "The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition" (e.g. [ http://www.amazon.com/The-Diary-Anne-Frank-Critical/dp/0385508476 here]).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Diary of a Young Girl. 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/20110718044959/http://www.jpr.org.uk/Reports/CS_Reports/no_3_2000/index.htm to http://www.jpr.org.uk/Reports/CS_Reports/no_3_2000/index.htm

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) 00:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Play genesis and controversy
There is apparently quite a story behind the American play, which should get some treatment here. Ibadibam (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * you are citing a long 20 year old story; could you expand a bit on what you wanted to add? L.tak (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)