Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Was Anne Frank 5 feet tall? Is this notable?

I read in a description of the Anne Frank House on the Scrapbook Pages that she was 5 feet tall. I THINK I've read elsewhere (was it on the Anne Frank House main website? In her diary?) that people made markings of the Frank children's height on the walls of the Annexe, but I'm not entirely sure if they did or didn't. In any case, Anne was apparently taller than her bed was long (as noted by Anne herself, see the Diary, August 4, 1943, in which Anne mentions her bed as being "5 feet long, so we have to add a few chairs to make it longer" - the Scrapbook Pages site had it that her bed was 4 and a half feet - so Anne might've been a little taller than 5 feet.) However, pillows probably took off some length of usage, maybe a few inches, so we might conclude that she was 5 feet or a bit taller in height. I don't know if this fact is notable or not, though. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't sound like a fact yet: it all sounds too vague. If it ever becomes a fact, it might be worth adding. Cheers, Doctormatt 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Otto Frank did indeed mark the growth of both Anne and Margot on a wall in what was Mr and Mrs Frank's bedroom. I can vouch that it is still there, the section of wallpaper protected by perspex (I have seen it), so the height may well be recorded at the Anne Frank Fonds website. I have several books by/about Anne Frank but I can't recall seeing the actual height noted in them, though it may be. If I can find anything, I will let you know. Whether it's notable or not.... well, I don't know. I don't think it is of particular importance. Rossrs 12:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's notable! It is just the kind of little fact people might consult an encyclopedia for. I found this on a dutch website [1]: "Anne is dertien als ze gaat onderduiken. Ze is volop in de groei. Op de muur in de kamer van meneer en mevrouw Frank vlak naast de deur van Anne’s kamer, wordt de lengte van Anne en Margot bijgehouden. Uit de streepjes blijkt dat Anne tijdens de periode in het Achterhuis ruim dertien centimeter langer wordt"

Which translates as: "Anne is thirteen when she went in hiding. She is still growing. On the wall in the room of mister and misses Frank just next to the door to Anne's room, the length of Anne and Margot is recorded. The marks show that Anne grew 13 centimeter during the time she stayed in the Achterhuis. "

Unfortunately the page doesn't list her length. Sander123 12:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a good start. It's sure to be recorded somewhere. Rossrs 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Did it realy happen, or was it a big, 50 year old, hoax played out at a innocent Duch-girl's expence? (added by User:Madge_Mitchel 6 February 2007)

Yes, it really did happen. The only hoax is that it didn't. As far as Anne Frank's height goes, Ernst Schnabel mentions in 'The Footsteps of Anne Frank' that he measured the mark on the wall that dated from July 1942:

"Two years before the arrest she was about five feet two inches in height"

Don't think it is essential to our understanding of her though... Yallery Brown 12:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make a intresting bit of what is now called 'trivia'.--86.25.50.34 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

When I was at the Anne Frank House in summer 2004, I had a careful look at the markings of her and Margot's heights on the wall. Some of the markings had an "A" next to them and some an "M", but not all of them, which meant they were difficult to properly interpret. But it seemed to me that they indicated that Anne grew a lot more than Margot during the period of hiding and had almost caught up with her. I seem to remember that this is confirmed somewhere in the diary. I asked someone who worked at the House if anyone knew how tall she was, but he said this wasn't known because the markings were too difficult to interpret. I do think the question of her height is an interesting one though. It is known that when the train carrying Anne and her family arrived at Auschwitz, every child under the age of 15 was immediately sent to the gas chambers. This is mentioned by Carol Ann Lee on page 170 of her biography of Anne and by Harry Pappe on page 50 of the Revised Critical Edition. Pappe cites Hefte von Auschwitz (Auschwitz Notebooks) as his source. As Anne was 15 years and 3 months when she arrived at Auschwitz, she must have been one of the youngest to have survived the initial selection. But the Nazis didn't select on the basis of age, but on the basis of appearance. This suggests that Anne looked relatively old for her age, which suggests further that she was relatively tall. In other words, it was likely the growth spurt she experienced during the two years in hiding that saved her from being gassed. Marsoult 22:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree!--86.25.49.91 03:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Anne Frank: The Diary of A Young Girl section

The "Anne Frank: The Diary of A Young Girl" section is much longer than the leaf article, The Diary of a Young Girl. Many of the sub sections (Publication of the diary, Praise for Anne Frank and the Diary, and particularly, Denials and legal action) describe events that took place well after her death. Would it not make sense to move that information to the book's article, and allowing this bio stub to focus on Anne Frank's life? - TheMightyQuill 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. At least, I agree that the article on the book should be the most comprehensive. Any information on the book that is not present there should be inserted. Sander123 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good question. I was one of the editors that worked on this for featured article status, so I'd like to explain why the article is structured the way it is. At least from my point of view - I won't suggest that the other editor I worked with shares this opinion. I see Anne Frank as being almost unique as a biographical subject, or at the very least, highly unusual. She lived a mundane life, and she lived and died anonymously. Had her diary not survived, her life story would have been of no more interest to the world at large, than the life stories of the millions of others who endured the same situation as she did. So on the one hand, a very ordinary girl, but on the other hand an exceptional icon or symbol that represents something to millions of people throughout the world, that the girl Anne Frank could never have represented, if she had lived. What happened after her death is of huge significance here. The transition from ordinary girl to iconic symbol occurs through her writing and through the journey her diary took from the time it was discovered, until today. It's necessary to write about the girl Anne, and the symbol Anne, but neither of these "Annes" make sense without understanding the diary and the journey of the diary - this is the lynchpin. I'd be horrified if this was stripped back to a purely biographical article as suggested by User:Themightyquill as the "events that took place well after her death" are at least as important as anything that occured before it, save the actual writing of the diary. I agree that the discussion of the diary has grown out of proportion and that the leaf articles should be expanded and improved. Condensing some of the current information may not be a bad idea either, but I wouldn't like to see them reduced to stub sections, let alone removed completely. Rossrs 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry! I wouldn't advocate vandalizing the page. What do you view as a solution? Merge the pages? Accept some duplication? Or try to separate the topics. Say this page only to focus on the books reception. (Is there even a problem to begin with?) (unsigned comment by [[User:Sander123 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Merge the pages? I don't think that would help. Accept some duplication? Yes, I think some duplication is always acceptable if only the most relevant points are duplicated. Try to seperate the topics? I think this has already been done by the sectioning of text, and the leaf articles, so I'm not sure what you mean. Say this page only to focus on the book's reception? I think that would weaken this article because in a sense the book (and Anne Frank) is still being "received" - it/she continues to be introduced to new generations - it was a set book for me in high school and I'm sure I'm not alone on that point. Our perception of Anne Frank continues to evolve as new projects are undertaken in her name. I think ending at the "reception" section limits discussion of her legacy. I'm not sure there is a problem to begin with, although the fact that some editors believe the article needs to be revised, is cause enough to question it. My opinion is that the detailed post-publication sections could be abbreviated to the most specific and relevant points, and linked to the other articles where more detailed discussion is more appropriate. Sorry for the late reply, by the way. I have this on my watchlist, but somehow I missed it. Rossrs 07:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There's is a Dutch weblog which posts the diary of Anne Frank. I think it is revolutionary. The link: http://annefrank.wordpress.com/

Quack, quack, quack goes Little Miss Natterbeak

Note: see diary entry for June 21, 1942!

I see that our Neo-Nazi pals have been carpetbagging their agenda into the Anne Frank story yet again, proving (ironically) that they're more "chatterboxy" than Anne Frank probably was. (Excuse me if this sounds pejorative. But Anne Frank seems to have become the poster child for the genocide of her day and age, and so her talents get ignored in favor of how she died, who killed her, who betrayed her, the fact that she was in hiding, etc., etc. Any good encyclopedia article should celebrate Anna's accomplishments in addition to how she relates to the genocide, and - let's face it - Holocaust deniers' attacks on Anne Frank and her diary are concentrating a huge amount of their effort on a tiny corner of the Holocaust (millions were killed in this genocide - some five (not six) million Jews and seven million others, for a grand count of 12 million) - and their efforts are probably better spent on ensuring that another such tragedy doesn't happen again. Perhaps they do it because any race worthy of being called the "master race" doesn't stoop so low as to commit genocide, the Neo Nazis know that, and they attempt to cover up the genocide that Germany made. 204.52.215.107 13:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think perhaps you should remember that it was the Nazi Regime that commited genocide, not the nation of Germany. Wiki one 23:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

.ogg file at the top

There's an ogg file at the top of this page, right after the name Anne Frank. I (theoretically) have a program that will play ogg files, but I can't make it work. What the heck is the file? Is it someone pronouncing her name or what? 68.116.143.113 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC) My atempt to ues the .ogg dose not work either.--86.25.55.8 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ogg file is a recording of someone pronouncing her name. The .ogg format is not the most broadly useable yet, so some browsers may not be able to play it. If you download the file, you might be able to get an audio program to play it (that's what I do - Audacity plays it just great). The .ogg format is an open standard, and more in keeping with WP philosophy, so that's why it is used. Cheers, Doctormatt 06:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling errors

Is it "Secret Annex" or "Secret Annexe"? Tebin 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"annexe" is a chiefly British variant of "annex". - Nunh-huh 00:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

Thanks for the moralising 'sob-story', but I think it's a fake. As if Germans would be that crule. Worse happened in the Indian mutianey and Idi Amin's tyirrany. User:Alarnah Mathilde De Houk 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Donation

I added a paragraph, in the "Legacy" section, about the donation of documents by Anne's cousin, Bernhard Elias, to the Anne Frank House.

BTW, my city, Boise, Idaho, has a Human Rights Memorial featuring quotations from many people, including Anne Frank, and a statue of her (see pic below). Would that be appropriate to mention and/or depict in this article?

Sca 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would.--86.29.250.178 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is intresting to know about the statue.--Pine oak 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

All pages ending before May 2007 were archived.--86.25.49.108 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Vandalism of photograph

Just noticed that the file

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anne_Frank.jpg with the photograph has been vandalized.

It has "www.ismellajewismellajew.com," in the comment section under File History. This "I smell a .." ethnic slur should not be kept as part of the official File History, obviously. --Harel 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Age in Photograph

Does someone know her age in the photo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anne_Frank.jpg If so this should be added as information in both the picture page and the Anne Frank wikipedia entry. Also, it would be intereseting and useful to have the most recent photo in existence, on wikipedia as that has historical relevance: the last known photo of her before her death --Harel 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

She looks about 11 or 12 years old to me.--86.29.241.14 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

Okay, I noticed that this article has been vandalized quite a few times in the last few days. I just got through with reverting an edit. I propose that anonymous users be locked from editing this article. Thanks anbellofe 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm about to post here to report vandalism of photograph. --Harel 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Donation

I added a paragraph, in the "Legacy" section, about the donation of documents by Anne's cousin, Bernhard Elias, to the Anne Frank House.

BTW, my city, Boise, Idaho, has a Human Rights Memorial featuring quotations from many people, including Anne Frank, and a statue of her (see pic below). Would that be appropriate to mention and/or depict in this article? 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would.--86.29.250.178 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is intresting to know about the statue.--Pine oak 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How did they vandalize it? What is the punishment? (User gaangel95) --Gaangel95 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting site with information about Anne Frank

Hello, i would like to suggest interesting external site: THE EXHIBITION: "ANNE FRANK - THE HISTORY FOR TODAY"

If you like it, maybe someone decides that it is worth including in main article External Links.

Regards Wozniakk 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Death date

we all know that Anne Frank's death occurred in March 1945, about 3 weeks before the liberation.The exact date is not known.However, the Dutch Red Cross document that confirmed her death, said she died on March 31, 1945.This is only an approximation, since it was common for the Red Cross to establish approximate death dates for those whose death date was unknown.

Should I put her death date as cMarch 31, 1945?

Regards: I think it would be very OK to put that in, as it is an official document, but not saying that is her exact date. i say"go ahead and put it in" but idk, i am not a mod, i will let the mods decide. 75.170.125.58 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

despite it apparently being clear that she died towards the end of March '45, throughout the article the date is given as 'early March'. If there is a reason for this, it isn't documented in the discussion. Any reason for that? raining girl (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the house Museum states: Margot fell and broke her leg a day later. Anne died about 3-4 days later of loneliness and thinking she was the sole survivor of her family (falsely believing her father had died). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.104.108 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

An important question is exactly how long did she spend in the camp before she got typhus. If this was an extermination camp as claimed, in which children were gassed because they couldn't work, then why wasn't she gassed at once? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.172.23 (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of what you are asking is contained in the article. Anne and Margot were transferred from Auschwitz to Bergen-Bergen in October 1944, and in March 1945 a typhus epidemic spread through the camp. Considering that the disease progresses quickly without treatment it would be fair to say that Anne and Margot were not ill for long, but it's kind of a moot point. I also think you are confusing the two camps they were held in. Auschwitz was primarily an extermination camp. As noted in the article, many people from the transport that brought the Franks to Auschwitz were murdered upon arrival including all children under the age of 15. Anne had just turned 15 so she was spared, along with a large number of adults who were considered fit for enforced labour. Bergen-Belsen was not an extermination camp. Its high mortality rate was the result of neglect and disease, rather than the more direct and organised murder that took place in other camps. Rossrs (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

What does everyone make of this story? Does it bear inclusion in the article? faithless (^speak) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think yes, that should put into the article. Peter was fallen in love with Anne and later she wrote in her diary about her slowly growing feelings for Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.246.241 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Magic link "prose"

Can someone that has been "autoconfirmed" please make "prose" a magic link -In "Denials and legal action", 3 lines up from the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StormRider (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tanya Savicheva

Please add Tanya Savicheva to the See also list. I wish I could do it, but the article is semi-protected. 89.110.27.178 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was a very moving account. --Tony A Thomas jr (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Add a new language to the language box

This article is written also in Farsi, but i cannot add the link to the language box, as the article cannot be edited. Can anyone help me? Dictionary-worm (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of name

I know that some people believe the correct spelling of Frank's birthname should be "Anneliese". Please note that Anne Frank House on their website, gives her birthname as "Annelies" [2] and the website for Anne Frank Fonds (the organisation which was established by her father) also uses "Annelies" [3]. Any change to "Anneliese" will need to be accompanied by a source that is more reliable and more knowledgeable on the subject of "Anne Frank" than either of these organisations. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's best if we go with the offical web site version as User:Rossers has done.--Mike A Mitchel jr (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I hered it was spelt as- 'Annë Frank'.--Micky the bold snr (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was apelt 'Anna' on a site I went to resently--86.25.49.93 (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Early life

Two questions about the early life section

The article says: "The Franks were Reform Jews". Shouldn't this be Progressive Jews instead? The Reform Judaism article suggests that Reformed Jews lived in the UK and US; the Progressive Judaism article seems more appropriate.

Further on I read in the article: "Otto Frank started a second company". What was the name of that second company?

Thanks, Ilse@ 22:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment, as I was the one who added both of these points. Looking at the two articles - and I know very little about Judaism - Progressive Judaism seems more appropriate, not only for the fact that it specifically mentions European Jews rather than UK or US Jews, in the Reform Judaism article. In my (mostly uninformed) opinion, the Franks seem a bit more along the lines of Liberal Judaism but both Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism seemed to evolve into Progressive Judaism in the early 20th Century. Just my interpretation based on the limited information I have read.

As for the text in the article. It is from Anne Frank, Beyond the Diary by Ruud van der Rol and Rian Verhoeven for the Anne Frank House. So as a verifiable and citable piece of information, this is at least authoritively cited - whether it's completely accurate is a seperate issue.

Also... from The Biography of Anne Frank, Roses From the Earth by Carol Lee, p. 33 "Edith [Frank] became very involved with the Liberal Jewish congregation"... which is not to say she could be categorised as of Liberal Judaism, but it's getting in the right direction. (It's probably best to consider family religion from her point of view, because Otto did not observe the customs of Judaism and was not bar-mitzvahed) From Anne Frank, The Biography by Melissa Müller, "The liberal congregation that German immigrants had established in Amsterdam in the early thirties had become an important part of Edith's life. Most German Jews did not feel comfortable with the Orthodox Judaism that dominated in Holland, aligning themselves with the liberal Reform movement instead".

The main point is that they were not Orthodox Jews, and with the exception of Edith Frank, religion had not been a strong theme in their family life. Do we need a label for this? Would it be more correct to simply change the text to explain their observance of some elements of Judaism, without actually assigning a definition to their particular set of beliefs? Maybe it could read, "The Franks lived in an assimilated community of Jewish and non-Jewish citizens........ " Not sure about this.

Otto's second company... this is much easier. It was called Handelsmaatschapi Pectacon N. V., often referred to as Pectacon. I have updated the article. Also van Pels was incorrectly named as being a partner when he was in fact an employee. Have changed this also. Rossrs (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have copyedited the sentences about Pectacon. – Ilse@ 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Dutch language, I think that Liberaal jodendom (literally: Liberal Judaism) applies. Maybe the issue can be resolved by using the phrase "liberal Jews" in the article, that is linked to Progressive Judaism that applies to all liberal/progressive Jews in Europe? – Ilse@ 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"liberal Jews" would be fine. I think the most important thing is the comment that they were not especially observant of Jewish custom or religion. Whatever title goes with that is of a lesser consideration. I think "liberal Jews", linked to Progressive Judaism is accurate. Rossrs (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the words to "liberal Jews". – Ilse@ 09:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

House at the Prinsengracht

The Opekta article mentions the reason why Opekta moved from the Merwedeplein to the Prinsengracht. I think this information is also relevant here. Perhaps something like the following could be added to this article: "In 1940, Opekta was re-registered under the names of Jan Gies and Johannes Kleiman to prevent it from being confiscated as a Jewish-owned business. The company changed its name to Gies & Co and moved to Prinsengracht 263." – Ilse@ 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's entirely relevant. Rossrs (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added the sentences, although they need a proper source reference. – Ilse@ 09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found a source reference, but I also found that it wasn't only Opekta that he saved this way - he did the same with Pectacon. The source I've found show it as being April 1941 for Pectacon, and December 1941 for Opekta, so the 1940 date is maybe incorrect. I expanded it a little to explain how it was done, but also why - the main reason was to maintain an income to support his family, and I feel that's an important point - perhaps a little obvious but worth saying. I can find nothing to confirm a move from Merwedeplein, and it makes no sense that the business was ever at Merwedeplein because as far as I know, they lived in a standard apartment block, and there was no room for a business. I've removed that part. Rossrs (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Without the information about moving to the Prinsengracht, the legal construction seems less relevant for this article. Maybe something could be added from the paragraph Opekta & Pectacon. – Ilse@ 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I think it's not so much the legal construction that's relevant, but the precarious situation the family faced, and Otto Frank's ability to work around it, something most were unable to do. It has a direct bearing on Anne because it kept a roof over her head at Merwedelplein and also made the Prinsengracht safe for their future. From that point of view, I think it's a relevant part of the story. It also indicates the trust placed in Kleiman and Gies before the family went into hiding. The source you've found is excellent, and I think adding from there would be good. Rossrs (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Diary of a Young Girl

I think the section The Diary of a Young Girl could be reduced to half the current size. – Ilse@ 09:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it could be significantly reduced. Rossrs (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New photograph Anne Frank House

Hi everyone, I made a photograph of the Anne Frank House, that you can use in the article as a replacement of the current. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Diary publication

Rather than baldly stating the fact it might also be mentioned why the Diary was initially rejected for publication. No explanation is an invitation to suppose the worst imo. It was apparently considered “very dull,” not appealing to Americans, no longer topical, accordingly rejected by 16 publishers - nytimes . Hakluyt bean (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Wow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.50.30 (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I ♥ Anne Frank!--86.25.3.96 (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"My friend Anne Frank"

May advice the book of Jacqueline van Maarsen, a formerly friend of Anne Frank. That book is relatively new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.246.241 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands denial law

About the law in the Netherlands mentioned at the end of the "Denials and legal action" section: If that law is in effect still, then someone should find out what the current fine is. If it's still ƒ25,000 (Dutch guilder), that would equate to approximately €11,344.51 based on the final exchange rate to the euro. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

I've removed this link - www.annefrank.o-f.com - from external links twice. Here's why.

The external links that are already in place are beyond question as they are all official sites of the various Anne Frank organisations. They are very detailed and are well presented.

Per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided it fails on these points :

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

The article is already a featured article. It's been assessed and reviewed and many editors have looked at it over the last few years, and have basically concluded that it's fine. The information contained in the external site expounds upon various theories but it doesn't offer anything new that is not contained either in the article or the existing external links. It focusses on one aspect of Frank's story which is against the spirit of WP:UNDUE and it goes into such detail that it is not relevant to Frank's main story, which is already told in considerable detail.

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

Although it gives a list of sources, the way the information is presented it's impossible to know how much came from the sources and how much is interpretation. It seems to be drawing conclusions rather than merely quoting facts from these sources. That is not in the spirit of WP:OR and if Wikipedia editors are to be discouraged from adding original research of their own, we should be just as vigilant in ensuring that unknown external contributors do not contribute their own opinions over that of legitimate published sources. From reading the website it's not even clear who has created it. It has no legitimacy in that regard. The contributor could be absolutely anybody - they make no attempt to establish their credentials.

Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

We don't know who created the website or whose opinion is being stated. As such it is no better than a blog. It could be most accurately described as a "personal web page" simply because nothing is provided to indicate otherwise.

The website is badly presented and difficult to read. For example section 6, "Guilty" is a mess of text. Contrasted against the very professionally presented sites already included, this one looks just the opposite. There is no necessity for this link.

I would welcome any comments but please do not add it without discussing these points. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I support these points made by Rossrs and will add that honestly, I found the webpage difficult to read and process due to its presentation. Once past that, it was completely unclear regarding its sources and validity. A featured article has to pass very high standards, and once that occurs, any additions should be held to the same standards. This website does not reach that standard. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that the page is not up to standards as required, I posted it based on the version that was there in 2004, now it has become a spam/advertising site!

most sorry. cathie (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Typos

Please correct apparent (to me) typo: resuce --> rescue Kevdav63 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed this section, which did appear to be a typo. Thank you for leaving a comment about it. Rossrs (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Who gave the diary

I would like it if you would say that Anne's father gave Anne her first diary you do not state that!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.205.223 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions that Anne showed the diary (autograph book) to her father. Isn't that sufficient? It seems to have been a birthday gift from both parents, even if it was Otto who made the actual purchase. The biographer Melissa Muller in Anne Frank The Biography describes it as "a gift from her parents", and in Inside Anne Frank's House, An Illustrated Journey Through Anne's World, (with introduction by Hans Westra, Executive Director of Anne Frank House it is also described as "a gift from her parents". Rossrs (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Image of diary?

This is quite an excellent article, but I do miss an image of the real diary. This is probably something that has come up before, but I think it would be a good addition to the article. Unfortunately I can only find a CC image of the diary in a display case in some museum (a by-2.0 image). Typehigh (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"in regards" is incorrect usage

A minor nit: In the "Life in the Achterhuis" section, third paragraph, the sentence "She regarded Hermann van Pels and Fritz Pfeffer as selfish, particularly in regards to the ...": The phrase "in regards" is incorrect usage. It should be "in regard to ...", or may be "as regards the ...", but not "in regards." Magnan (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Fixed. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

End of Anne Frank's life

she died in Germany Holland.Thats What the book said right not im in google earth i put germany frankfurt am Main and Gonna Change Yr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.48.233 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Her life ended at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Germany. Durova⁴⁰³ 01:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That must be some book you're reading. Germany Holland is not a place, and Germany is not in Holland. Bergen-Belsen is in Germany and is where she died. Frankfurt-am-Main is in Germany and is where she was born. Amsterdam is in Holland and that's where she spent most of her life. Rossrs (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would fix this but it's locked.... feel free to delete this section

"...in a mass grave, the exact whereabouts of which is unknown."

For the sake of readability and because this is not grammatically correct, this should read, "...in a mass grave, but the exact whereabouts are unknown."... or maybe "in a mass grave, the exact whereabouts of which are unknown." even. I dunno... seems it would be nicer.

very informative entry as a whole. nice job.

PS: It is in the section titled "Deportation and Death" in the fourth paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.92.194 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback regarding Encyclopaedic Value of AnneFrankHouseAmsterdamtheNetherlands.jpg

The image AnneFrankHouseAmsterdamtheNetherlands.jpg from this article has been nominated as a Valued Picture Candidate. Valued pictures are images that add significantly to articles, by illustrating article content particularly well and being among Wikipedia's most educational work. The full criteria for Valued Pictures can be found here. Opinions about the encyclopaedic value (EV) of this image in this article according to placement, relevance to the text, information conveyed would be very useful and welcomed for this nomination. Elekhh (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Category "Children in War"

I suggest adding this to the category Category:Children_in_war as —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.122 (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Place of birth

How could she be born in Frankfurt and Weimar at the same time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.90.157 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The same way one can be born in Dallas and Texas at the same time, or Moscow and Russia. See the map near the top of Weimar Republic (File:DR1919-1937.svg). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rocks at the memorial

One of the photos for this article shows a headstone with the names of Margot Frank and Anne Frank. The caption refers to "floral and pictorial tributes" left at the memorial. However, the caption neglects to mention the rocks left at the headstone. It is traditional for Jews to leave stones at grave sites, because unlike flowers, stones are permanent. Considering Frank's Jewish heritage, and the fact that she was persecuted for this heritage, I think it's appropriate to use the caption to briefly explain the presence of the rocks. Bluemonkee (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. The rocks are as prominent as the other items but are not mentioned. Because it's not a widely known thing, I would suggest either include the information about the rocks, with a citation to link to a reliable source or make the whole thing neutral by removing mention of the "floral and pictorial tributes". Rossrs (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Names?

In this article it says that the other family's name is van Pels and the dentist's name is Pfeffer, however in her diary Anne says it is the van Daan family and the dentist's surname is Dussel. Why is this like this?--5ahupt (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Certain editions of the book used pseudonyms for certain real people to protect their identities/privacy. Exxolon (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's... Um... That's a little odd concerning a diary don't you think...? Jersey John (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really that odd. When Anne started the diary she expected to be the only one to read it. She heard a radio broadcast that said the Dutch government was considering finding diaries to publish after the war. Anne revised her diary in the hope it could be published, and changed the names of several people including the van Pels family and Pfeffer to protect their privacy. She also changed the names of some of the helpers to protect their safety. She didn't change her name or the names of her family. All the changes were made by Anne. When her father worked on having the diary published, he went with her second version, complete with pseudonyms. It's explained in the article. Rossrs (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ballpoint Pen Controversy

Various websites indicate that the German equivalent of the FBI examined the manuscript, and, in 1980, discovered that portions of it were written with a ballpoint pen. If that is true, it would place the authenticity of the diary in serious question, since ballpoint pens were not available until after the Second World War. Allegedly, there was an article in Der Spiegel magazine about this. While this may have been resolved in favor of the diary's authenticity, I think it should be addressed in the article, as the story of the ballpoint pen is still circulating.

John Paul Parks (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Should it read ...

"As Anne Frank's stature as both a writer and humanitarian has grown, she has been discussed specifically as a symbol of the Holocaust [...]" as opposed to "As Anne Frank's stature as both a writer and humanist has grown, she has been discussed specifically as a symbol of the Holocaust [...]" as I do not think she was a humanist (at least by the deffiniation given on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.1.2 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nazy?

Under the picture, it says she died in "Nazy Germany." Is this some sort of alternate spelling of Nazi, or just a blatant typo? Even if it is an alternate spelling, shouldn't it be changed to the more common spelling anyway? Kronos o (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That term is okay and politically correct. We Germans applying oneself that term "Nazideutschland" ("Nazi-Germany") when we speak or discuss about the time of that former Germany under that dictatorship of Hitler. It isn't an offending to Germans in modern and democracy times and also correct to use that on Wikipedia. Also it is usually in German news-articles or in officially (and seriously) TV-news to apply the description "In der Zeit des Nationalsozialmus ..." ("In times of National Socialism ...").--|~ whoever99 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I only kinow of 'Nazi' and not of 'Nazy'.--86.25.3.96 (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And it's not 'Natzi' or 'Nazie' either.--86.29.143.235 (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's spelt Nazi.--Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Typhus ("spotted fever") or typhoid fever?

I recall a "Typhus" epidemic being named as her cause in my German-language literature class. However, Typhus and de:Typhus refer to different ailments. Are there any precise English-language sources for her illness? I think that typhoid fever would be correct in English and was on the verge of listing her as a famous victim on that article. (where she was previously removed by an IP editor) Don Cuan (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Anne or Frank?

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names, we should refer to her as Frank, shouldn't we? Calling her Anne seems a bit informal. Of course, we should call her Anne whenever "Frank" would be ambigious - but since the article is about her, such instances would be rare. Surtsicna (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC) For example, shouldn't it be: "For her 13th birthday on 12 June 1942, Frank received a book she had shown her father in a shop window a few days earlier" instead of "For her 13th birthday on 12 June 1942, Anne received a book she had shown her father in a shop window a few days earlier"? Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's very tricky. Your comments are right, I believe and it is very informal. The main difficulty I see would be in the fact that often more than one member of the family is mentioned in the same sentence, or in connecting sentences that discuss one point. Imagine this sentence "Anne and Margot formed a closer relationship than had existed before they went into hiding, although Anne sometimes expressed jealousy towards Margot, particularly when members of the household criticised Anne for lacking Margot's gentle and placid nature." Rewritten to comply with the MoS, it would read "Frank and Margot formed a closer relationship than had existed before they went into hiding, although Frank sometimes expressed jealousy towards Margot, particularly when members of the household criticised Frank for lacking Margot's gentle and placid nature."

And yet the MoS says this " To disambiguate between family members with the same surname, use given names or complete names to refer to relatives upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to relatives by given name for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing."

Just commenting. I don't know how it should be done so that it fits the MoS and (more importantly in my opinion) reads smoothly as prose. Rossrs (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How about: "The Frank sisters formed a closer relationship than had existed before they went into hiding, although Anne sometimes expressed jealousy towards Margot, particularly when members of the household criticised Anne for lacking Margot's gentle and placid nature." That would comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Family members with the same surname, as it would be analogous with the example cited there ("The Reagans arrived separately, Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car"). However, there are many instances where replacing "Anne" with "Frank" would not make the sentence ambigious. Should we first deal with such, simple cases and then discuss more complicated situations individually? This may seem like a minor issue, but I thought a featured article would comply with the MoS. Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're completely right - a featured article should be compliant and it's the little details that stop some very good articles from being featured. To make the obvious changes first, seems like a sensible approach and I'm glad you raised this point. "The Frank sisters..." sentence is good in my opinion. I'm happy to discuss this further, but like you said, fix what needs fixing. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Random other diarists in See also

The see also section has become a bit of a magnet for other diarists. If there is demand for a list article of war diarists then this might be a suitable link but the See also section should not become an embedded list with no selection criteria. Unnecessary off-topic links should be removed on sight. Fæ (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Petr Somol, 28September 2010) Actually the following link may make enough sense to be included in See also:

• List of posthumous publications of Holocaust victims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.202.9.26 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlock the page

Despite possible "vandalism" unlock the page now ! --93.82.1.201 (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've found your way to WP:RFPP, and I've commented there. Could you propose your edit using the {{edit semi-protected}} template instead? This article attracts a huge amount of vandalism; I'd be very hesitant to unprotect it, and I suspect Airplaneman (talk), the admin who most recently protected it, would feel the same. TFOWR 11:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a wikipedia admin, but have been following this page since making some small edit to it a couple of months ago. The amount of vandalism on this page is crazy! It's all the most childish kind, like replacing the whole text of the page with "penis" or inserting Nazi / Jew "jokes". I'm not sure of the protection status of the page over the weeks that I've been following it, and I think that might have changed recently, but there are very solid grounds for some protection of this article. --Stroller (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Anne Frank in comics

Found this - hope it helps in some way. --Malkinann (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ribbens, Kees (2010). "War comics beyond the battlefield: Anne Frank's transnational representation in sequential art". In Berndt, Jaqueline (ed.). Comics Worlds and the World of Comics: Towards Scholarship on a Global Scale (PDF). Kyoto, Japan: International Manga Research Center, Kyoto Seika University. pp. 217–231. ISBN 978-4-905187-01-1. Retrieved 29 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

FRANKFURT IN WEIMAR?

PLEASE who ever can modify the page FIX THE MISTAKE of Frankfurt am Main's location ... Weimar is far far away and has nothing to do with Hessen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.31.140 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No mistake. See the last time somebody asked. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Last transport?

On Anne Franks page this assertion is made: On 3 September 1944,[36] the group was deported on what would be the last transport from Westerbork to the Auschwitz concentration camp, and arrived after a three-day journey

Again there is a note on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerbork_concentration_camp of the Franks being on the last train out of Westerbork.

This information is contrary to the information provided by Etty Hillesum in her letters to friends when she indicated the Franks were gone on September 1, 1943, and Etty left for Auschwitz on the transport train with her family a week later.

My source: In Interrupted Life The Diaries, 1941-1943 and Letter from Westerbork, Hillesum, Etty, Holt Paperback, New York. 1996 p:335 and 361

173.169.26.205 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)faelinnotara@hotmail.com plagiarism do not give me the points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.91.100 (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[[4]] I read it abut Anne to--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What's this about last train out of Westerbork. --86.24.11.226 (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tales from the Secret Annex

Shouldn't we mention this book in her biography, too? Rklawton (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 123.211.40.26, 21 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} it is sad what happened, by just one person feeling that he can dictate and be god well he paying for it.... power and money went to his head!. now he too is facing the music and he is being judge by god. i hope anne frank is resting in peace along with her family aside her. i can understand why people are bitter and still have scars that will be with them for the rest of their lives. just pray that nothing else happens that it destroys the peace and freedom we have today. i studied the anne frank diary when i was in high school and i have learnt allot from reading the diary.

123.211.40.26 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic. Was there a change you wished to make to this page? Intelligentsium 23:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See also editing

First time doing this, please bear with me. In the see also section Rutka Laskier and Věra Kohnová are identified as a Polish Anne Frank and a Czech Anne Frank respectively. Can these be changed to something that doesn't discredit them as individuals who wrote dairies with no knowledge of Anne Frank? The current phrasing is discrediting to their legacy. Lostxero (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It seems easy, lazy and also somewhat dismissive to describe other diarists as a "French Anne Frank" etc. I suspect that it has more to do with publishers trying to market the diaries as commercial properties, than a true comparison of literary merit or historical significance. In saying that, I also do not intend to demean or discredit any of these diarists. On the contrary, I think they and their diaries should be allowed to stand on their own merits, without the shadow of Anne Frank's diary standing over them. So, I've changed it. Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - good call. Rklawton (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Colour of the Diary

On 3 August 2008, an anonymous editor changed "red-and-white plaid cloth" to "red-and-green plaid cloth". I have seen the original diary in the Anne Frank House and it did not look very green to me; this can be confirmed by looking at any of the numerous photos of the diary online. Was this edit an act of unnoticed vandalism or am I missing something here? If the latter, could someone please give me a source for the claim that the diary was originally red and green, not red and white? Marsoult (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. Miep described it as a "little red-orange checkered diary". Ann Frank Remembered: The Story of the Woman Who Helped to Hide the Frank Family pg. 235. Rklawton (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I actually noticed it said red and green way back in 2005 and so I changed it to red and white. But as someone changed it back to red and green three years later, I thought maybe they knew something I didn't. In photos of the diary (e.g. the one here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V2hxUD8yUlk/TEhQM6AjG3I/AAAAAAAAAoY/LcxE2Q-3bcI/s1600/frank622+Correction.jpg), it looks red and white to me as well as a brownish colour that could be a faded orange (or green?). But I'm willing to defer to Miep. Perhaps you could add the reference to Anne Frank Remembered in the article. Marsoult (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Marsoult, I've also replied to you at my talk page. I've also seen the original diary, but that was nearly 10 years ago, and my memory fails me. I agree that in photos it looks like "red and white". I'm the editor who originally described it as "red and green", but that was 6 years ago, and I do not remember where I took that from. Much as I admire Miep, I would prefer to defer to the Anne Frank House site. Although not infallible, they are pretty much in the business of documenting Anne and her work, and I would expect that they would be more likely to strive for accuracy. Anne Frank Org Museums, Exhibitions describes the diary as "red and green" twice. "Anne Frank’s original red and green checked diary has always been on display in the museum..." and "Anne was given the red and green checked diary on her thirteenth birthday on 12 June 1942". They also have a photograph of the diary here. It looks like red and white to me. This doesn't exactly solve the puzzle, but at least it gives something that meets WP:RS. On the other hand my own eyes tell me that it doesn't look like red and green. Rossrs (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to defer to the Anne Frank House, though I'm curious to know what their source is given that the diary does not look remotely green. I might well contact them to get to the bottom of this. In the meantime, I'll change it back to "red and green". Marsoult (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is odd, isn't it? If you contact them, I'd be interested to hear what they say. Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hannah's biography also states the diary was red and white checkered. Hannah was Anne's friend and saw the diary. Rklawton (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK folks - I found a source (and cited in the article: ISBN 0-590-47447-2) that provides a photo of the diary and the description ("red and white checkered cloth"). You can see the text cited via this link on page 3 as well as the cover which indicates this was published for the Anne Frank House. [5] This source was published specifically for the Anne Frank House - so it's authoritative. Every single source from Miep to Hannah to the photos themselves all state or show clearly a red and white checkered cloth book. Only one source states "green" - and that's the official website. However, given the volume of published eyewitness reports plus the photographs we can see with our own eyes, I think it's high time we go with the preponderance of the evidence and correct this "green" business once and for all. Rklawton (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Dutch version of the official page we're citing for the "red and green" quote doesn't read "red and green" it reads "roodgeruite"[6] which translates to "red-checkered" - there's no "green" on that page at all. So - if this is the "official" website - then the "official" language is Dutch and we can assume the English version we're using is simply a mistranslation of the original. Keep in mind that the museum and website are in the Netherlands - not a native English speaking country. In short, we shouldn't be citing a mistranslation - not when the original is available to us and when many other sources also say "red checkered", "red plaid", or "red and white checkered". And, of course, there are the photos... Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It seems logical to me. Rossrs (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was in Amsterdam over the weekend and paid a visit to the Anne Frank House on Sunday (two days ago). I asked the woman at the information desk why the diary is described as "red and green" on their website and showed her the relevant page. She said that she felt sure it was a mistake and would look into the matter further with her colleagues (because it was a Sunday, their resident Anne Frank "experts" weren't in that day). She also looked at the original page in Dutch and pointed out, like Rklawton, that it only says "red" and so the "red and green" on the English page is probably a mistranslation. Indeed, they seem to have already taken action to correct the mistake (though so far have done a rather poor job) since one of the references to "red and green checked diary" has now been changed to "red checked diary" (though it still says "red and green" in the second paragraph). Marsoult (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

SS man who arrested Anne Frank became intel officer in postwar West Germany

[7] Worth including in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's too far off the topic for this article, but it's worth including in Silberbauer's article. Rklawton (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

POV?

Just out of curiosity, how is it my "POV" that Frank's protectors would have been "executed" rather than the milqetoast "face the death penalty"? "Face the death penalty" is much more ambiguous than "face execution". As far as "Let's just stick with what the source says", are you saying that the source says, "capital punishment|face the death penalty"? Obviously not. There's certainly no "wiki link" in the source either. I agree that verifiablity is important, but editors shouldn't be forced to simply copy a source verbatim. The change I made was minor, correct, and most certainly not "POV". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't in the best mood when I posted that, and was probably a tad more brusque than I should have been. The general esscence of the message is genuine. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The way you wrote it, it sounds like the Germans automatically killed everyone caught helping Jews. This is not what the source said - and it's flat out wrong. Though some were executed as examples, most were not. In fact, Anne's helpers were caught, and none of them were executed, though the possibility existed that they could have been. As a result, the original text is exactly right and your text was exactly wrong. It really looks like you let your personal feelings influence your edits, and that makes it POV. But nevermind that, what you wrote, it's not sourced, and it won't stand. Rklawton (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I did. Thanks for the explanation. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Canon of Dutch History"

I included in the "Legacy" section the following

In 2007 a group of Dutch historians included Anne as one of the topics of an official "Canon of Dutch History", which is a list of 50 topics that aims to provide a chronological account of Dutch history.

referring to which (I assume) a contributor has placed a note in the article's History to the effect that it's neither the correct title nor the correct linking technique.

One does despair (hope that's the correct linking technique) but ... 1 "Canon of Dutch History" seems to me to be a good translation of Canon van Nederland and was the one adopted in Annie M.G. Schmidt from which I borrowed after searching Wikipedia 2 Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose has this to remark on inter-language links

If it is desired to include, in some article, a link to a topic that is not covered by an article on English Wikipedia but does have a page in another language version of Wikipedia, then there are two possible approaches:

Use a red link pointing to a possible future article on the English Wikipedia;

Use an interlanguage link pointing to the existing article on the other Wikipedia, as described in the next section.

The advantage of the first approach is that the red link informs all readers that the page does not exist locally, thus inviting its creation, and avoiding directing readers to a page that many of them will not understand. The disadvantage is that it conceals the existence of the foreign-language page, which might in itself be of interest to many readers, and may also be valuable to anyone wishing to create a corresponding English Wikipedia article.

It is sometimes possible to combine the two approaches, giving a local red link in addition to an interlanguage link explicitly marked as such. For example: "...the plans were drawn up by German architect Hans Knoblauch (see German Wikipedia article)..."

and my own preferred (but not it seems the contributor's, nevertheless I think arguably at least correct) linking method was because 2a indeed I thought the reader would find the Dutch page useful 2b indeed I thought a translated page was not likely forthcoming though I might be prevailed upon to provide one eventually (but one is presently rather busy with other pressing matters) were the community to suffer me 2c combining the two approaches does seem a little excessive here.

However let the community edit as must needs ruat caelum.

Oh and I chose to write Anne rather than Anne Frank because 3 that seems stylistically appropiate in a concluding remark essentially valorising the iconic status Anne has achieved in Dutch culture, but change that too if it is not correct.FightingMac (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

... whoops, the contributor's remarks were directed at another edit but let mine stand anyway. Sorry. FightingMac (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Now reverted 'Anne' to 'Anne Frank' as per the article usage :-) Apologies. Sometimes foolish in my fancies :-). I've embarked on a project of translating the "Canon of Dutch History" into English which I expect to complete by June 6. Please do contact me if that conflicts with any ongoing project of yours: happy to defer to anyone with a developed project likely to complete in the near future. In that case I can be getting on with providing articles for the topics not yet covered or translated. FightingMac (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

'Canon of Dutch History' article now provided. FightingMac (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Johnbeene, 17 May 2011

Please change "After several weeks, he discovered Margot and Anne had also died screaming in a toaster." to "After several weeks, he discovered Margot and Anne had also died."

Johnbeene (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Navnløs. — Bility (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Grüne Polizei?

The article states:

the apartment was stormed by the German Security Police (Grüne Polizei) following a tip-off from an informer who was never identified.[34] Led by Schutzstaffel Oberscharführer Karl Silberbauer of the Sicherheitsdienst

That is incorrect, there is no such thing as the German Security Police (Grüne Polizei), the Grüne Polizei were the uniformed Ordnungspolizei. The Orpo or "ordinary police". The apartment was actually stormed by a man from the Sicherheitsdienst along with two plain-clothed dutch policemen. The information in the reference is wrong. SD officers wore the field-grey SS uniform. The Ordnungspolizei, if they were operating in occupied territories, were part of the Police Battalions and therefore were not the SD, which was part of the RSHA. Likewise the heavy use of the word Schutzstaffel is retconning its application for the actual Nazi historical title is SS-Oberscharführer.

This needs to changed because these sentences are factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.231.250 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

All we need now are reliable sources indicating that the above is correct, and we can add it to the article right away. Rklawton (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening Sentences

I think there are several problems with the opening two sentences of the article. These sentences were a relatively late addition (February 2010) and I think they detract from the article’s quality. First off, the second sentence (“Acknowledged for the quality of her writing, her diary has become one of the world's most widely read books…”) seems to me grammatically flawed since it literally means that her diary is acknowledged for the quality of her writing, but I think the editor meant that Anne Frank herself is acknowledged for the quality of her writing. Second, I think it’s unnecessary, and misleading, to describe her as “one of the most renowned and most discussed Jewish victims of the Holocaust” (emphasis added). The Holocaust is defined in the Wikipedia article on the subject as "the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II", so it follows that there were no non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Even if the Holocaust is understood as including genocide against other groups, I still think the term "Jewish victims" is misleading since it could imply that there are many non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust who are more renowned and discussed than Anne Frank, which of course is not true. But my main criticism is the emphasis that the opening sentence gives to her role as victim. Perhaps she is renowned for being a victim of the Holocaust, but she is also renowned for being a writer, and I feel that her fame as a diarist should be emphasised in the opening sentence over, or instead of, her role as a victim. Other encyclopaedias, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of World Biography, and the Columbia Encyclopedia, all make it clear in the opening sentences of their articles on her that she is famous for being a diarist, and I think this article should do the same. I suggest that the current opening two sentences are deleted, what is currently the fifth sentence becomes the first sentence, and her places of birth and death are mentioned in parentheses, i.e.:

Annelies Marie "Anne" Frank (12 June 1929 in Frankfurt am Main – early March 1945 in Bergen Belsen) was a German-born Jewish girl who gained international fame posthumously following the publication of her diary, which documents her experiences hiding during the German occupation of the Netherlands in World War II.

This sentence, with its reference to her death in Bergen Belsen, indicates that she died as a result of the Holocaust, but emphasises more her fame as a diarist. It also makes it clear that she was born in Germany but lived in the Netherlands (which is expanded upon later on in the article). Marsoult (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well thought out, and I like your analysis. I would support the edit that you suggest. Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that her fame as a diarist should be empasised over her role as a victim. But wouldn't it be better to say she was a Dutch Jewish girl rather than a German-born Jewish girl? I know she was born in Germany but she only lived there until she was 4 and she considered herself Dutch anyway. For An Angel (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edit reg. Fria Ord attribute

In the first paragraph of the section [[8]Denials and legal action] the Swedish magazine Fria Ord is described as a "Nazi" publication. The Swedish Royal Library (Kungl. biblioteket, Stockholm) lists the magazine as "national conservative", which I find more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.206.48 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Anne Frank reminds me of my friend, Kiley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.113.15 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012

please change Annelies Marie "Anne" Frank to Anneliese Marie Frank because in her diary is explained that that was her official name. Otherwise the Anne is a nickname used by her relatives or friends and it isn't official.

Gonzalort1 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Our custom here is to list the full legal name as well as the name or names they were known by. That is what we have done here, and there is no need to change it. The quotation marks clearly indicate that "Anne" was a nickname. Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand but would you be so kind of Writting Anneliese in spite of Annelies at least?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalort1 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change to reflect her name as it appears here: http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?topic=05 Rklawton (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I just checked this page's archives. The general idea is that we go with the official foundation's spelling which is without the "e". If we get a copy of her birth certificate, then we can know for sure. Personally, I like the "e" because it's German and Anne was German, and the version without the "e" is Dutch, her adoptive country. Rklawton (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, it has sence.--Gonzalort1 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you decided now to change your mind and force your will on this article? Don't. Without a reliable source like her birth certificate, your edits will be immediately reverted. Rklawton (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edith Schwalb

I propose the creation of a page for Edith Schwalb, a girl with a similar story. She cataloged her experiences in a diary, and a book was published using those diaries as a base. http://www.gecdsb.on.ca/staff/teachers/just%20read/hidingedith.htm

76.71.153.73 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Be bold! Register as an editor and give it a shot. I recommend drafting it first before actually adding it, though. It'll make a better first impression. Rklawton (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012

Bubblegumyum222 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to {{sfn}}

This article is a good candidate for conversion to {{sfn}} templates, as it already is using Harvard style citations. Using the sfn template means that the <ref> tags can be omitted, and any citations that are used more than once are automatically collated. Improvements can be undertaken with the online sources as well. If there are no objections, the work will be started sometime in the next week or two. Please post any comments or discussion in the meantime. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Posted April 25th 2012

I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, I just read. Someone needs to revert this article and severly beat who ever defaced it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.105 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done; investigating the problem now. -- Dianna (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations are not required in the lead per WP:LEAD

Citations are not required in the lead. Such citations are considered to be redundant, as all the material in the lead also appears in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. Citations related to Frank's literary fame and the acknowledged quality of her writing include footnotes # 57 through # 69. -- Dianna (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Such lead is generally very cheesy and inappropriate per WP:WEASEL. SkyBon (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL says, in part, "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." Therefore WP:WEASEL doesn't apply, as the points are covered by citations #57 through #69. -- Dianna (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Still cheesy. Word "renowned" is explicitly forbidden per WP:PEA. This is an impartial encyclopedia, not Anne Frank's fan boy house. SkyBon (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not a fanboy! I am a girl. Still, I will take that phrase out. It is better. -- Dianna (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the phrase "acknowledged for the quality of its writing" is an attribution to who exactly? Every one of 7 billion living on this planet? Or specific journalists, critics and fans? A clear in-text attribution is required naturally. It might not be very specific but still must be there. "acknowledged ... by many critics" would be OK.

Next, "one of the world's most widely read books". This is an outright lie unless a clear figure of book sells that proves this fact is supplied. SkyBon (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations are not required in the lead; see WP:LEAD. The information appears in the "Reception" section, and it is all thoroughly cited, so the citations are redundant in the lead. The people listed in citations #57 through #69 are not critics for the most part; they are people like Hilary Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt and Nelson Mandela. So changing it to say "acknowledged ... by many critics" would be inaccurate. Book sales figures are not included in the article so that bit will have to be removed. -- Dianna (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a wrong summarisation. Simply saying "acknowledged" means attributing it to 7 billion people living on this planet. If Nelson Mandela or US State Department like the diary it should be stated explicitly. SkyBon (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This material is all covered in the section "Reception". All the details from the section do not need to be in the lead and should not be in the lead. See WP:LEAD. The lead is a summary. -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Again if you attempt at summarising do it correctly. The phrase acknowledged cannot be used without in-text attribution. SkyBon (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Annex or Annexe

I see both used in the article. I understand the origin of Annexe as listed in the article, but I think only one should be used outside of that sentence for consistency. 216.185.77.30 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Anne dreamed of becoming?

Section Before going into hiding mentions: " Frank dreamed about becoming an actress. "
But Section Life in the Achterhuis mentions : "Frank aspired to become a journalist"

Which one is correct or can we get references for both? Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dreams of being an actress are sourced to Muller, page 119-120, and I have verified the content is on those pages: Google

Dreams of becoming a journalist are sourced to her diary, and an extensive quotation is provided in the article. So it looks as though, like many young people, she changed her mind. -- Dianna (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Authenticity of Anne Frank's Diary

The article says "In 1991 Holocaust deniers Robert Faurisson and Siegfried Verbeke produced a booklet titled The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach. They claimed that Otto Frank wrote the diary, based on assertions that the diary contained several contradictions, that hiding in the Achterhuis would have been impossible, and that the prose style and handwriting were not those of a teenager." The wikipedia article then says their book was censored in the Netherlands.

Fortunately, with the advent of the internet censorship is much more difficult to carry out. Here is a fascinating article by Professor Robert Faurisson about his interview with Anne Frank's father who had the diary published. Professor Faurisson went to visit Otto Frank in Switzerland and met with him for three consecutive days. Professor Faurisson's article is very interesting and Professor Faurisson shows himself to be a sensitive, compassionate, intelligent man. After reading the article, one can see why the diary's authenticity is questioned.

http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/is-diay-of-anne-frank-genuine-by-robert.htmlPgg804 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Is there not an inherent issue with saying Frank "was one of the most discussed Jewish victims..."? I understand the intention here: to express that she herself no longer "is", but the fact is that she is still one of the most discussed Jewish victims of the Holocaust. You don't have to be alive to be discussed by others. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the term "was" is more correct as the term "is" would be a statement about the present point in time, when all that is known with certainty is the degree of discussion surrounding Anne Frank which has transpired in the past. I think the tense is in relation to the discussion rather than to the life and death of Anne Frank. Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should change it to "is", as she is still heavily discussed, and new books about her are being published all the time. The tense should apply to the discussion and not to Anne. -- Dianna (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the argument is that we can only be certain about discussion which has already occurred (which is therefore already in the past). - Estoy Aquí (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

But she is still very widely discussed. A more adequate past construction for what you've described would be the present perfect. "was" is absolute in this context and expresses firmly that the situation has changed, which it hasn't. This is a case of common sense; the burden of proof obviously lies on proving that this is no longer the case.

I understand your logic (I think), that we cannot be certain of what is transpiring right this moment in time. If Wikipedia rules were really that exacting, then nothing would ever appear in the present tense. To take an extreme example: we don't know that Britney Spears is still alive . We know that until yesterday, or the last time she updated her Facebook (or whatever) she still was, but those are now past. We can't be certain that at this very moment she is still alive, and therefore we should remove all present tense references from that article.

The reason we don't is because there is no reason to think she has died. Equally, there is no reason to believe that discussion of Anne Frank has declined. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Is" should be used if that is in fact still the case. One could tell by Google search numbers and book, article numbers of the current timeframe. Kierzek (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My conclusion would be that it is. But what qualifies as the "one of the most widely discussed" is subjective. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Anne Frank was not and is not one of the most discussed victims of the Holocaust. The holocaust would have been the intentional and systematic extermination of people. People who have been killed deliberately. Anne Frank, otherwise, according to this article itself, was not murdered, but died of a specific disease: typhus. It was not, therefore, a victim of the holocaust or extermination, but ofes, a special disease caused by the war and that reached even Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.48.66 (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Nazis deliberately let people starve or die through lack of medical care. Those peoples are victims, in my opinion, just the same as those who died in the gas chambers. -- Dianna (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No they didn't Dianna. You don't know what you're talking about. All of Germany was starving and disease was spreading because the allies were deliberately murdering tens of thousands of German civilians in just a few minutes when they were deliberately targeting German civilians in their cities, they were destroying Germany's transportation infrastructure and they were deliberately bombing Germany's pharmaceutical factories. That's what caused the mass starvation throughout Germany and that's what caused the deaths in the concentration camps too.Pgg804 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe you're defending the actions of the Nazis during the Holocaust. Who created the concentration camps in the first place? If Anne Frank hadn't been taken against her will from her home and forced to live in one of those camps where it was impossible to stop the spread of disease then she would never have died of Typhus. So yes she was most definitely a victim of the Holocaust and the Nazi's are the only ones to blame. For An Angel (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Who arrested Anne Frank?

The article as it presently stands records that the arrest of the family groups hidden in the Achterhuis was carried out by uniformed German police led by an Austrian SS officer Karl Silberbauer. The implication is that the arresting party were, like Silberbauer, citizens of the IIIrd Reich. A detailed report entitled "Who Betrayed Anne Frank" written by David Barnouw and Gerrold van der Stroom, and published by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD) on 24 April 2003 does however note (on page 5) that arrests of this nature were carried out by Dutch police under German orders; and (on page 7) records the names of the three Dutch detectives ("collaborators") who accompanied Silberbauer. The issue of whether the actual arrests were carried out by (i) Germans or (ii) Dutchmen under direct German command is of only secondary relevance to the tragedy of the Frank family and I do not propose to re-revert this passage. However I was asked to provide my source for the initial change and have done so. Buistr (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

"Two new books, an upcoming film and a soon to open museum seek to create a contemporary, complicated -- and more Jewish -- image of the Holocaust victim." Ankh.Morpork 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2013

Anne Frank was born in Frankfurt an der Oder, Brandenburg - and not in Frankfurt am Main or Weimar in Thüringen 86.84.6.140 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence reads as follow: Annelies "Anne" Marie Frank (12 June 1929 – early March 1945) was one of the most discussed Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

Does it mean she's not one of the most discussed anymore? 78.251.215.40 (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Dianna (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section marked Arrest

It currently states:

"the group included at least three members of the Security Police."

This linking is anachronistic because the Sicherheitspolizei had ceased to exist in 1939. SD agents were known figuratively as SiPo but the State agency that spawned the term had been abolished. The other men were all probably from the the Sicherheitsdienst (SD). Likewise using meaningless terms like "Security Service" or "Security Police" are neither helpful or informative. They mean nothing in historical terms.

"The Franks, van Pelses, and Pfeffer were taken to Gestapo headquarters, where they were interrogated and held overnight."

Here's another thing. There was no such thing as the Gestapo headquarters. It's an Anglicized term that was created for the building from where the hideous Nazi security agencies operated from! The building where the Franks were taken would have been the headquarters of the RSHA, which would contain departments of the Geheime Feldpolizei, Kripo, Gestapo and SD. So not just the Gestapo, which was just one agency among several.

These errors need to be corrected otherwise this article looks nothing more than a high school essay and not an entry in an encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.185.20 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bieber

Perhaps the article should make it more clear that Frank died almost fifty years before Justin Bieber was born?--→gab 24dot grab← 04:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break. Rivertorch (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Anneliese, gosh darnit!

I think we should resolve this. I'm looking at the Revised Critical Edition and as a previous user pointed out, on page 17 there is a picture captioned "Registration certificates issued to applicants for emigration from the occupied Netherlands by the Jewish Council and the Zenstralstell für jüdische Auswanderung and her name is entered as "Frank, Anneliese". Also, page 3 of the Critical edition says "Their first daughter, Margot Betti, was born on February 16, 1926, followed by Anneliese Marie, called Anne, on June 12 1929" (my emphasis). As such, we should show the name as it was provided officially, despite how she may have spelled it.

In the last conversation about this issue Rklawton stated that the name should be displayed as "Annelies" in accordance to how it was spelled by the "official foundation", but there would not appear to be such a thing. From what I can tell, the Anne Frank Fonds and the Anne Frank House seem to be vying for that position given that the Fonds sued the House to obtain the the Otto Frank and Frank-Elias Archives. And so it's seems rather subjective to call one of them "official".

Even though both the Fonds and House sites say she was born "Annelies", the Critical Edition provides an official document. A birth certificate would be more definitive, but again, there is no "offical foundation".

As requested in previous conversations, I will be so bold as to show her name as "Anneliese Marie Frank" citing the very reliable Critical Edition. Heck, I'll mention both. Ender and Peter 06:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

cause of death

There is of course, at least indirectly, not only one cause of death in the case of starving and brutally mistreated people, but there's apparently contradictory information about Anne Frank's death on even very reliable Internet pages.

The discrepancies may be due to a widespread translation error in texts on Anne. If true, the German term fleckfieber was correctly translated into English as typhus but then incorrectly translated back into the German term typhus, which means typhoid fever. This incorrect information was then brought back into English.

http://www.annefrank.org/en/Anne-Frank/Discovery-and-arrest/The-destiny-of-the-people-in-hiding/The-fate-of-the-women-from-the-Secret-Annex/

http://www.annefrank.org/de/Anne-Frank/Entdeckt-und-verhaftet/Das-Schicksal-der-Untergetauchten/Das-Schicksal-der-weiblichen-Untergetauchten/

http://www.annefrank.ch/anne-frank-57.html

On the other hand, there are also fairly reliable sources that report that both of these diseases were rampant in Bergen-Belsen: 

http://bergen-belsen.stiftung-ng.de/de/geschichte/dp-camp/nothospital.html

http://www.ndr.de/geschichte/chronologie/nszeitundkrieg/verbrechen100.html

According to this WP article, the English translation of Müller says on page 261 that the March 1945 epidemic was typhus. What does the German original say?

Unfortunately the following pages are at least temporarily unavailable: 

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/01/NMT01-T508.htm

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/01/NMT01-C001.htm

They apparently show that Anne died due to inhumane typhus vaccine experiments.

I've sent emails to annefrank.ch, annefrank.org, annefrank.com, and mazal.org --Espoo (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen any reliable information claiming that medical experiments were conducted at Belsen. Not sure that this helps: http://web.archive.org/web/20130510013459/http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/01/NMT01-C001.htm - but the other link http://web.archive.org/web/20060720162335/http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/01/NMT01-T511.htm goes to a trial transcript that is about typhus experiments...but they were conducted at Buchenwald. So although it is theoretically possible that the infection travelled somehow from Weimar to Belsen, I would say it is unlikely and impossible to prove.

Given that there were no post-mortems on any of the people who died there, looking for a cause of death may indeed ultimately be a futile exercise. Who is to say whether they really died of a disease, malnourishment or exposure... Drow69 (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I took it out of the text. It is a broken link, after all...and the only KZ I found mentioned was Buchenwald. If anyone can find a reference to Belsen in that trial transcript, let's restore it.Drow69 (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Weimar?

Please remove references to the town of Weimar. This has nothing to do with Frankfurt. Anne Frank never lived in Weimar, and Frankfurt is not in Weimar. Please see the German page for a proper write-up, or refer to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 11-09-2013 on Anne Frank's youth. I can expect better from a protected article. 174.66.1.33 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

She was born in Frankfurt Am Main, which was then part of the Weimar Republic. "Weimar Republic" is the name given to Germany from the end of WWI until the Nazi seizure of power in 1933. There's no mention of the town of Weimar in this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Weimar?

Please remove references to the town of Weimar. This has nothing to do with Frankfurt. Anne Frank never lived in Weimar, and Frankfurt is not in Weimar. Please see the German page for a proper write-up, or refer to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 11-09-2013 on Anne Frank's youth. I can expect better from a protected article. 174.66.1.33 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

She was born in Frankfurt Am Main, which was then part of the Weimar Republic. "Weimar Republic" is the name given to Germany from the end of WWI until the Nazi seizure of power in 1933. There's no mention of the town of Weimar in this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Natural Death

Typhus was a natural cause of death, and as such she cannot be considered to have been "killed" by the Nazis. Therefore, she was not a holocaust victim(ie. she was not a victim of the genocide caused by Hitler). She wasn't killed by Germans or German soldiers under Hitler's command; she died naturally. The conditions the Germans put her in may have aggravated the Typhus outbreak's outcome, but they never caused it, and as such, they cannot be considered to have killed anyone who died from the Typhus. As an analogy, if someone goes to prison for committing a crime and contracts a fatal disease whilst in the prison, can you say that the government or the justice system "killed" him? If her caused of death is uncertain or ambiguous, as other individuals in the talk page have already stated, then it would be best to refer to her as an "alleged" holocaust victim.

I understand this site may have a slight political bias, but I request you don't remove or flag this as "anti-semetic hate" when I have a (in my opinion)well reasoned argument to support my premise. JDiala (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis intentionally made conditions in the camps poor so that people would die from disease or starvation as well as being intentionally killed in the gas chambers. The conditions in the concentration camps were atrocious, with inadequate food, medical care, toilets, or other basic items needed to stay in good health. Typhus is a bacterial disease spread by lice, and thus a death from typhus in a concentration camp is something that, say, a citizen living in Amsterdam would never experience. She's every bit as much a victim as if she had been gassed. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Death by willful neglect.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dianaa. And indeed, if someone dies in prison of food poisoning (which is caused by an intentionally bad, filthy kitchen), then the justice system killed him.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Too bad

A few weeks after and died World War II was over and the Jewish people were let out of the concentration camps. It's too bad and couldn't have lived a little while longer to see that day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.68.237 (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's heartbreaking. If you have any suggestions about improving the article, please feel free to post them to this page. Rivertorch (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I just wonder why they had to be so cruel to people after all we are all humans and I mean we may still make mistakes but still some people need to realise that we are all made in the likeness of The Lord Jesus Christ and we shouldn't dishonor him like this...#christianity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.107.180 (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A vast number of cruel deeds have been perpetrated in the name of Christianity over the centuries, and more than a few have been directed toward Jewish people like Anne Frank. If you have any suggestions about improving the article, please feel free to post them to this page. Rivertorch (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a suggestion page for the article, not a forum. 60.224.160.185 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

I think that this sentence "In the chaos that marked the unloading of the trains, the men were forcibly separated from the women and children" needs to be re-written. It makes it sound like the men were separated becuse of the 'chaos'. In fact the separation was quite deliberate Nazi policy. 213.114.44.178 (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bisexuality

I propose that Anne's bisexuality be added to her page. If not as its own section, then it should at least be added to her list of Categories at the bottom. She is already included on Wikipedia's list of bisexual people. The reference from that page:

^ Frank, Anne; Massotty, Susan (translation); Frank, Otto H. & Pressler, Mirjam (editors) (1995). The Diary of a Young Girl - The Definitive Edition. Doubleday. ISBN 0-553-29698-1. Diary: Thursday, 6 January 1944 "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 friendiship, 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!"

That fragment isn't in my version. So or the quote is made up, or it was not there in the old versions (like mine), which is both likely. I believe we need some other (and better) references to back up this claim.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say, even if the paragraph was confirmed, that at so young an age you can confirm a person is bisexual. Not that it would in any way be a hindrance to the person, but many people behave differently in the early teens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.137.178 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted the addition of a section on Frank's sexuality. [9] It cited what appears to be a blog as a source for the assertion that "There is speculation that Anne Frank was bisexual". [10] While it is clearly true that there is speculation (in the blog), it is hardly evidence that such speculation is significant, and adding a section on the supposed sexuality of a fourteen-year-old girl based on nothing beyond a single passage in her diary seems undue to me, at least until it can be shown that the subject is covered in depth in multiple credible sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that there should be an addition that there is speculation about her sexuality, as it has appeared in other articles.--GouramiWatcher^pride 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

why, how is this relevant in any way what so ever?? Please tell me why you think this is important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.5.223 (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

no 5.133.23.222 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC) no

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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Date of death

I'm not sure how to edit this, so I figured I would post it here. It looks like her death date is said to be February now, not March as previously thought.

http://news.yahoo.com/anne-frank-died-earlier-thought-study-says-174211909.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan33185 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is just unscientific speculation. The reasoning is that four camp survivors -- none of whom were physicians -- reported that Anne and Margot showed "symptoms" of typhus by late January 1945. So our first problem is that we don't even know if the girls had typhus, as opposed to something that four lay people thought looked like typhus. The authors go on to say that "... most deaths from typhus occur around 12 days after the first symptoms appear, so it is unlikely that they survived until the end of March." That is not necessarily true at all. Assuming for the moment that the diagnosis was correct, untreated typhus runs a variable course, ranging from a few days to several weeks, depending on the type (there are four types of varying severity); and younger patients typically do better than older ones. So it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that they survived through March, or even longer. I suspect that we will see a flurry of criticisms from infectious disease docs in coming days, and I would strongly discourage adding any of this stuff to the article until the discussion runs its course in the medical community. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that the author states Margo is Anne's younger sister and that Anne penned a *dairy*, I think it's safe to ignore the article in its entirety. Rklawton (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The NL Times states that this is according to research carried out by the Anne Frank Foundation. On the other hand, it is April Fool's Day today. Suggest we bide our time on this one. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

When I read the research paper yesterday my thoughts were exactly the same as those of DoctorJoeE. Still, I would favour changing the death date in the article to "February or March". The original paper can be found at the website of the Anne Frank Stichting. Buxtehude (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Having established that it is genuine, I agree with that proposal. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

After reading the original paper, I will stand by my comments above. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Miep Braams

there is nothing on her wiki page about her betraying them and having gone to jail for 6 years for it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.5.223 (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who you're talking about; never heard of anyone by that name, and there is no ineluctable proof for who betrayed the Secret Annex. Certainly, nobody went to jail for it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Begging your pardon; it's been awhile since I edited this article, and in re-reading it, I see that there is indeed reference to a Miep Braams in the Arrest section. So to answer your question, it's there, and has been for some time. That said, I wonder if it should be. The betrayer has never been positively identified, and there is no consensus on any of the several suspects -- so I fear that this reference to Miep Braams, implying that she was the informant, without mentioning any of the other suspects, violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I'll need to get myself a copy of Eva Schloss's book, and see what sort of proof, if any, that she offers. Absent definitive proof (which is unlikely), to maintain NPOV we should list all the sourced suspects, or none. If anyone else has any light to shed on this, please weigh in.DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DoctorJoeE. I am quite familiar with the subject of Anne Frank, and agree that we should not single out any one suspect as informant, as there's several theories, all unproven. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Diannaa: nice to hear from you -- it's been awhile. I've located Schloss's book, and there is no connection in it at all between Miep Braams and Anne Frank. Braams is mentioned as a possible betrayer of her (Schloss's) family only; so I'm going to remove that material, if no one objects strenuously, and replace it with a brief summary of the most-mentioned suspects: Willem van Maaren, Tonny Ahlers, and probably Lena Hartog-van Bladeren (the one proposed by Muller), along with what evidence there is. I'll wait a bit to allow for discussion. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comment, I will proceed as proposed above, replacing the unsupported material with a brief summary of notable suspects + the (mostly circumstantial) evidence for/against each. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

108.5.159.5 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Anne Frank was a very smart girl who had some problems with her mother.

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. Jamietw (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015

146.199.201.158 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

She came from a wealthy family

Shouldn't the bio include the fact that she came from a wealthy family? Her father owned a wholesaling business and owned both the entire building the business was in (the one where she was found) as well as the apartment where they had lived. That building is in central Amsterdam and is worth a small fortune. But perhaps including this would mar the memory of Anne Frank. But they weren't poor - they were rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.79.120 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The article makes no effort to suggest that the family was poor, and in fact describes the various businesses that Otto Frank founded and in which he had ownership interest. It also explains that Jewish-owned businesses were subject to seizure, and that the various transfers required to avoid this allowed "Frank to earn a minimal income, but sufficient to provide for his family." So while the family's economic circumstances may have been better than many prior to the war, their circumstances generally were not much improved by that fact and in fact, many of them died before the end of the war. So whether or not this is mentioned depends on whether you can cite a reliable source that says that they were "a wealthy family" and "were rich" as of 1942 when the events began that contributed (by way of Anne's diary) to her family's notoriety, and if so whether you can convince anyone that it is relevant to this article, and how. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's relevant alright - it's what got the Jews killed. True, the vast majority of Germans didn't know about the concentration camps or that Jews were being shipped off to their deaths, but the Germans hated them because they got rich off of hyperinflation. That is literally what got them killed - Germans became impoverished during the 1920's and the Jews (less than 1% of the German population) got rich. Anne Frank's family didn't get impoverished. And it is why Jewish-owned businesses were subject to seizure - because their money was viewed as immorally made. That's why the worthless banknotes during the hyperinflation were referred to a "Jew confetti". Oh, and the "source" is that building itself - it's in central Amsterdam - as mentioned above, it's worth a small fortune. Umm, you seem to have a problem with it being noted that Anne Frank's family were rich - why is that???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.79.120 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You should hardly infer what I might or might not "have a problem with" from one exchange, and even if you did, you are reminded to Assume good faith. This article is not about the economy of pre-war Europe, about hyperinflation, nor about the morality of Jewish businesses in the Netherlands during this era. This article is about Anne Frank. I'm still looking for some reasonable (and neutral POV) explanation as to why you think Otto Frank's businesses and the family's economic success prior to the war and the events of 1942-44 depicted in Anne's diary deserve any more of a mention than is already here. And perhaps you could propose just how that mention should be worded and where it should appear. So far, I'm unconvinced it should appear at all. (By the way, if you're not prepared for someone to disagree with you, you generally shouldn't ask any questions.) Dwpaul ^Talk 17:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And what, exactly, does the current value of the building in Amsterdam have to do with anything at all? The subject of this article is believed to have died in February 1945. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with Dwpaul; it's irrelevant to this article. And by the way, German hyperinflation benefitted any German who held hard assets such as gold or silver, or real property such as industry or real estate - and of course the German government itself, because it devalued the national debt - not just those Jews wealthy enough to own those sorts of assets (which was a small percentage of them). Furthermore, Jews weren't responsible for the hyperinflation in the first place. Laying the blame on them was just another excuse for genocide. What "got them killed" was Hitler and the SS, not hyperinflation. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hyperinflation and the reasons for the German persecution the Jews aside, I think that this would provide interesting background to know what the circumstances of the Frank family were before the found themselves hiding in an attic behind a bookcase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.7 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The family's circumstances are already documented in the "early life" and "before going into hiding" sections; but if you have additional material from a reliable source that you feel is relevant, feel free to propose it here for discussion. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Anne Frank

Template:Anne Frank is listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 8 based on the fact that it's not in use. As I note there, it's possible to merge the current two templates into one if there's interest (or to at least use that template name). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death

What is the cause of death of Anne Frank by the way? Please someone edit it so the people will know. THANK YOU.Chandelia16 (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, perhaps you're unaware that the exact cause of death for many (perhaps most) of those who were sent to and died in Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and other Nazi camps is unknown, as detailed records were not kept or were destroyed prior to liberation. She was likely either sent to the gas chamber or died of disease, very possibly typhus as discussed in the article. General Ization ^Talk 01:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably not gas chamber, as her transfer to Bergen-Belsen is well-established. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not even know the month of her death for certain, much less the proximate cause. The article states what is known. VQuakr (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion into Category:LGBT Jews and List of LGBT Jews

Speculation like this has been removed from the article previously – however, I added the Category:LGBT Jews to this article due to Anne Frank's inclusion in List of LGBT Jews. These seem to be based on this passage from Anne Frank's diary:

Wednesday, January 5,1944... 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 friendship, 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!

This doesn't really prove Anne Frank's sexual orientation either way, she was a young girl at this time and many heterosexuals have similar thoughts. I know "LGBTQ" can include "questioning" sexuality or gender identity, but that's not what the acronym is known for by most people.

What are other editors' thoughts on this issue? Zumoarirodoka (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included on the basis of this single diary entry. I would suggest removing her name from the related list article List of LGBT Jews as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That is pure original research. To warrant inclusion in either the category or the list would require multiple independent, reliable sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Coretheapple has removed her from the List of LGBT Jews, I have removed Category:LGBT Jews from this page. Thank you both very much. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

O'Toole of The Guardian

"We [still] live in a society in which young women are taught to be ashamed" is inaccurate.

The cited source does not mention anything about the past in this regard and speaks solely about the present. The word "still" implies a continuation, and the cited source says nothing about that.

The author of the cited source made a totally different point. His point was that "we live in a society that," not "we still live in a society that...".

Please correct this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.162.144 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Writer

WP:DNFTT

We've got one editor who wants to remove "and writer" from this biography. Given that Anne Frank wrote many stories in addition to her diary, I'd say this makes her a writer. See: Tales from the Secret Annex Rklawton (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC) It's true: in addition to the diary, she wrote a number of short stories. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Even if she hadn't written anything else, the diary qualifies as writing, n'est-ce pas? It's not as if she wrote, "Woke up, ate, read a book, went to bed" day after day. Her diary is no ordinary diary. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC) There's absolutely no question whatsoever that she needs to be listed as a "writer," and the sources are quite clear, as well as common sense. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC) A writer is a profession. Her diary/notebook/scrapbook I agree is "no ordinary diary" but it is a diary nonetheless. Many children have written plays for their own personal amusement and in their biographies they aren't listed as "playwrights". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofa King Insane (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Not all writers do so professionally, any more than all painters or all musicians. Common sense indeed: She was a writer, who is notable for her writings. General Ization Talk 22:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Egg-zactly -- "diarist" and "writer" are certainly not mutually exclusive descriptors. Many notable diarists -- Samuel Pepys comes to mind immediately -- were not writers by profession, but no one would say they weren't writers. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC) A few years ago I read Tales from the Secret Annex, which is a collection of Anne Frank's work, which she was writing with an eye towards someday becoming a published author. It includes her unfinished novel, Cady's Life. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC) DrJoe, Pepy's work crossed my mind as well (though I see he is not credited with the title here). Dare say all who put pen to paper, or pads to keys are writers, but frankly (no pun intended) Frank's notability is her recorded musings during a horrific event. Shall we call her a historian as well? Too many Wikipedia articles over-label people. Howard Stern is labeled a photographer. An alien race reading that a million years from now deserves having the wheat separated from the chafe, lest they see him as a visual artist instead of a producer of obnoxious drivel. A professional writer is someone who gets paid to write. A writer is someone who writes. Anne Frank wrote, she was notable for what she wrote, her writings were published, therefore she is a writer. Rklawton (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC) So there is a clear consensus for allowing the "writer" descriptor to remain. It shall be so. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Miep Braams in "Arrest" Section

I don't understand the relevance of the paragraph and block quote dealing with Miep Braams in the "Arrest" section. According to this section, the only connection between Braams and Anne Frank was that Braams betrayed the family of the woman Otto Frank married in 1953, as well as many other Jewish families. Unless there is evidence that she also betrayed the Frank family, the relevance to this article is negligible. Moreover, since she shares a first name with Miep Gies, the section is potentially confusing. I propose that the section either be introduced by something that clearly shows the relevance to the Frank family, or be removed altogether. Schoolmann (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, in my opinion -- Diannaa (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that there was discussion about this back in April. Someone was going to replace the section with a list of possible betrayers, but it appears not to have happened. I'm going to go ahead and do something similar; however, the only access I have to a list of possible betrayers is the Miep Gies website (http://www.miepgies.nl/en/The%20betrayal/). I'll put that information in, but I don't know if it's considered a reliable source. If someone else wants to re-edit the list of suspects or re-source it, please do. Schoolmann (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a 2013 edition of the Müller book in English available locally. I will fetch it next week and see if it has any content on this topic. Your source website looks okay; it's the Miep Gies website. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was I, the one who was going to add the list of possible betrayers. Unfortunately, a writing project has severely limited my editing time over the last few months. I have the material assembled, and I'll try to get it in over the next few days. Others, of course, are welcome to add what they have as well. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will get the book regardless, and will work on it further if there's anything fresh to add, once you've added your revisions. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

The two quotation marks on Anne should not be in bold. I have seen many featured articles doing that. Lazy to find the supporting policy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.75.38 (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no such policy that I'm aware of, and I'd appreciate if someone would point it out if it exists. The edit was reverted (by another editor) on the basis that the nickname "Anne" is integral with the identity of the subject and used in the title of the article. This has nothing specifically to do with the treatment of the quotation marks themselves, but it seems needlessly complex to "unbold" the marks when the name, including the nickname (in this case, the WP:COMMONNAME), is properly bolded. General Ization ^Talk 18:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is a consensus policy that nicknames should not be included at all within bolded full names, if the nickname is part of the article's title. It's probably in WP:MOSBIO -- I know it's somewhere -- the gist of the discussion was that we don't need to treat readers like idiots; if the article title is "Anne Frank", there is no need to begin the article with "Annelies Marie 'Anne' Frank", since the derivation of the nickname is obvious. What I thought I was doing, when I made the revert you mentioned above, was removing the nickname entirely -- but I was in a hurry, and failed to notice that all I did was remove the bolded quotes. I've now finished the job. Still working on the suspect list, BTW -- thought I had all the info assembled, but as usual I was wrong. So many articles, so little time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Frank Family Denied American Visa

There is currently a meme going around social media comparing the situation of Syrian refugees to the Frank family, and Anne in particular, saying that the family were denied American visas which might have saved their lives. On first glance I doubted the veracity of it, as I am sure many do, but on quick investigation found it was true; the story was reported in various publications including TIME and the New York Times in 2007.

Since the subject of refugees is a current event and brings Anne Frank's name back to the forefront of media, and since many people are likely to search out this article for verification of this fact that so many of us were not taught in school (because the information was not available until recently), should a small section be added verifying it?

Discuss. ~History Lunatic

Checked Otto Frank's page and there is a paragraph there, but it is right in the middle of the WWII section and I would have missed it had I not looked at the reference section on his article, then searched the article for the text related to the references.

Here is the paragraph on Otto Frank's page:

"In 1938 and 1941, Frank attempted to obtain visas for his family to emigrate to the United States or Cuba. He was granted a single visa for himself to Cuba on 1 December 1941, but it is not known if it ever reached him. Ten days later, when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on the United States, the visa was canceled."

Since he was the one applying for the visas, though he applied first for the whole family, it is appropriate to list it on his page; however, since the memes circulating state that Anne Frank was denied a visa to the U.S., most people would come to this page looking for the info. Should we include the above paragraph here too with sources? ~History Lunatic — Preceding unsigned comment added by History Lunatic (talk • contribs) 16:57 20 November 2015‎ (UTC)

None of the articles I've seen explicitly state that Otto Frank actually applied for US visas for himself or his family (as opposed to "wrote to government officials"). I don't see how he could have done so when there was no US consulate in German-occupied Netherlands. Does anyone have a reference stating that he did apply for one, and if so, how? There's also the point that it would have been almost impossible for the Franks, as German Jews, to leave the Netherlands legally in 1941. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

Im a great historian. Now I want to tell you a story about Anne Frank. I specialize in WW2 history. I want to tell you the real person who ratted out Anne Frank. the gestapo were not the only people who helped in the capture of Anne Frank. The real person who ratted out Anne Frank was! Special operative code-name bravo alpha Noah. He was an operative of the gestapo and was very loyal to Germany and Hitler, but he was Jewish.

Jew69420 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

With full acknowledgment of WP:AGF and WP:BITE — not funny. Not even mildly amusing. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Also, regardless of your skill as a historian, we will need citations of reliable sources to support any change you propose. General Ization ^Talk 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

177.64.192.216 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC) annelies marie frank 12 june 1942-march 1945

foto may 1942

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. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)