Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 27 July 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anne Frank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

	Anne Frank is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 7, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 3, 2005 Peer review Reviewed February 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted December 8, 2007 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish Women High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Children's literature High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 14 dates. July 9, 2004, August 4, 2004, July 9, 2005, July 6, 2006, July 6, 2007, June 12, 2008, June 12, 2009, June 12, 2010, June 12, 2011, June 12, 2012, June 12, 2015, June 12, 2016, June 12, 2017, and June 12, 2019

Template:EngvarO spelling

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anne Frank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

related movie

Someone should create an article for #Anne Frank Parallel Stories.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, should they? Can't you? Cassianto 16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Recipient of tip-off call

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

Sexuality in the Diary

.
Claims that Anne Frank was LGBT are unsourced and blatant POV pushing. We have discussed this several times. See:

• Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5#Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020
• Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5#Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019
• Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 4#Inclusion into Category:LGBT Jews and List of LGBT Jews
• Talk:List of LGBT Jews#Anne Frank.

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_(PinkNews) (where you linked to here) offers a fair number of citations to suggest this merits coverage in some form. Bondegezou (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Copied list of sources offered: As a Queer Jew, Learning Anne Frank Was Bisexual Is a Game-changer (Haaretz), Anne Frank, My First Bisexual Hero (Arre), Newly discovered pages of Anne Frank’s diary reveal her uncle was gay (Gay Star News), Here’s something you never knew about Anne Frank that will blow your mind (Gay Star News), Omitted: Anne Frank Would “Go into Ecstasy” at the Sight of Female Nudes (AfterEllen), Re-reading Anne Frank’s diary as a queer Jewish person (Special Broadcasting Services), Imagine Anne Frank at 90 (Religion News Service) Bondegezou (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Bondegezou, almost none of these are RS', and almost all of the research done in the articles is speculation and OR. We are not people to put a label on who Anne Frank was, she wrote down her feelings, but stating she was this sexuality or that is wrong. There is simply NOT enough evidence that Anne Frank was LGBT and it is wrong to label her as such. Could she have been? Sure. Could she have not been? Equally as such, but we'll never know and its inappropriate to label her as such. QueerFilmNerd 18:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just bringing over some materials from another discussion as they seemed pertinent here. If any of the references are RS, then they warrant consideration.

I'm not saying that this article should be categorised into Category:LGBT Jews and List of LGBT Jews, nor that it should boldly state she was bisexual. However, equally, it seems not quite right to say claims are "unsourced and blatant POV pushing", as above. There is a body of material, that is drawing on the text. Is there some compromise that would be appropriate, based on WP:BALANCE, that acknowledges that body of material discussing these issues, without labeling Frank. Bondegezou (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure either Frank's article or the article on the book itself mention these in passing, that they were removed originally but added in a later version of the diary, I feel that is enough. I feel there doesnt need to be any other mention. QueerFilmNerd 20:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Support inclusion - as far as I can tell, the pieces in Gay Star News, AfterEllen, and Religion News Service are all RS, which makes inclusion of this interpretation reasonable. I don't support the use of op-ed material in biographies (and this is a biography though not a BLP), but the existence of op-eds in Haaretz, Times of Israel, and sbs.com.au all support the inclusion of the material as DUE, so long as non-op-ed sources are the ones actually cited.

To be clear, I am supporting inclusion of the material; this is not a proposal to use any specific label for Frank's sexuality, which is a question demanding more nuance and discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, any non-activist sources? Given the subject, we need weighty academic sources. Guy (help!) 23:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Religion News Service is a pretty high-quality, non-activist source. And that is one of the reasons I mentioned the Israeli newspaper op-eds: they are mainstream rather than activist if one is to force such a distinction.

But anyway, I dispute the premise: our job as editors is to reflect the findings of recent, high-quality sources, not only the weighty (ancient) tomes. Since the publication of the Critical Edition and its scholarly apparatus, this has been a real issue in the literature, and as far as scholarship is concerned, it is discussed in the recent Palgrave Handbook of Holocaust Literature and Culture, not to mention that there is apparently a conceptualization of an "Anne Frank phase" of bisexuality in developmental psychology. So I really don't think this is TOOSOON any longer, especially given that we are to privilege recent over 20th century RS when we can. The argument that this issue belongs to "activists" seems to me to take far too much for granted in a field where the significance of lives lived in the past has to be open to redefinition in each generation. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, no it's not. We need academic sources for this. Guy (help!) 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is what Religion News had to say:

"Otto Frank picked up her diary, and he read it -- and he did something -- that word that we have heard so often recently.

"He redacted her diary.

"He edited out many passages: about Anne's conflicts with her mother, Edith; about her emerging sexuality, especially where she embraces her bisexual longings."

Here is my problem with this. Multiple high-quality sources that say that it is perfectly normal for a teenage girl to have sexual feelings towards other girls. If that makes you bisexual, then well over 90% of the female population is bisexual.

There are a few people who claim that any sexual feelings toward the same sex -- no matter how young you are, no matter whether the feelings are lasting, and no matter whether you ever act on those feelings -- makes you gay or bisexual. Those people are mostly homophobes and religious wackjobs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I am not saying that we should refer to Frank as "bisexual" or "queer" in wikivoice. What I am saying is that given the attention this topic is now receiving, it is DUE to mention it in the article (beyond the current whitewashing, which says nothing of use to our readers). Exactly what should be said, based on the BALANCE of the best sources, is another, secondary question.

and JzG, you said we need academic sources on this, but didn't give a basis for that in policy. Of the current 127 citations in this article, by the most charitable definition no more than 29 of those could be termed "recent, scholarly sources" (published in the last 20 years), and even that is probably overbroad because there seem to be primary sources included in the 29, which shouldn't really count. So why are you holding this material to a higher standard than the rest of the article? Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, this is an article on a historical figure. Activist sources seeking to "claim" their own are not appropriate. Guy (help!) 07:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Read correctly, JvG, I don't think that's what any of the (non-OpEd) sources under discussion is doing. And you haven't given any answer to my question why discussion of this material - not "categorization" or "identification" of Frank as LGBT, which neither I nor most the sources I've referenced are doing - is to be held to a higher standard of sourcing than the rest of this article. I'll wait. Newimpartial (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, what is written in Palgrave Handbook of Holocaust Literature and Culture? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The chapter in the Palgrave Handook of Holocaust Literature chapter is entitled "Anne Frank and Wartime Experimentation", by J Krongold. Since it is on Google Books, I suggest people read it for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC) - as discussed below, now that someone has read the source, which I did not have access to, it is not relevant. My apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the late citation. The classic indication of someone who started with a conclusion and went looking for sources to support it.

Given your history of confusing what a source actually says with your conclusions based upon your reading of the source, may we please have ab direct quote where Krongold says that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I do not believe that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual, and have not proposed that the article say that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual, why would I go looking for a quote that I don't believe exists. The point is that the scholarly chapter discusses the sexuality material from the Diary, giving it WEIGHT. And I first mentioned this source in my second post to this page, I don't think it counts as a "late citation". II just didn't take the time to track down its full details until now.

And given your history of confusing what authors and editors say with what you think they might possibly be saying, I am not going to participate in any straw hominid construction on your part, whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don’t have full access to that chapter (it’s missing four pages), unfortunately, but I can’t see a reference on the parts I can access. If you could give a page number or direct quote to support the claim, that would be useful. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I read pages 114-116; there's nothing about sexuality there. There are plenty of other sources which give weight to her writings about her sexual feelings. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes; my apologies re:Krongold; that's the last time I'll make a talk page mention of a source I haven't been able to read. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Anne Frank's sexuality, whatever it was, is not the reason for her notability. It played no significant part in her life story. It therefore does not belong in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, we are supposed to base that judgement on the recent, reliable sources, not an editor's personal sensibility. My $.02 would be that the fact that her sexuality was expunged from the original publication of the diaries and has come into the public conversation really only in the last ten years, is actually a salient part of her (postumous) story. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, "life story" in this context is a bit...well, misplaced, given the very limited space she had to write it. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The most that I believe this should even come to close being mentioned is a passing mention that the content about Anne's sexuality was part of the re-added entries for the unabridged version released in 1995, if anything at all. QueerFilmNerd 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any mention Sources are doubtfully RS and/or have a WP:AGENDA which we should not be catering to. There is not even close to sufficient coverage in mainstream independent reliable secondary sources to justify any mention of her alleged sexuality. See also WP:UNDUE and WP:LGBT/Guidelines which states in part... A deceased person may be categorized and identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual if they had documented, noteworthy relationships with persons of the same sex or other sexes, such as Marlon Brando. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that your position, "Oppose any mention", is not supported by the guideline you cite, which is about "categorization and identification". I am not proposing categorization or identification, and neither do most of the sources cited above, which seem to me to have less of an AGENDA on the whole than the editors opposing inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The sources are not substantially establishing the sexuality and the age (15) is too young for a realistic establishment of sexuality. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the mentioned content is not necessary for a further understanding of Anne Frank, and is not necessary on the page. The sources linked above are arguably not RS. Addition unnecessary. If anything, a passing mention that the passages were removed in the original and then re-added in the 1995 (I believe) version, but even then, the current wording for the "unabridged version" is fine. QueerFilmNerd 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support mention: I agree with NewImpartial that a pretty big part of the fact that her father redacted certain passages is why those passages were redacted. I don't think we should describe her as definitively queer in Wikivoice, but I definitely think we should include a mention that there were several passages in her diary that described attraction to women, perhaps attributed to one of the many RSes we have for this claim. Loki (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As for academic sources, I found this source which mentions a student's assertion that Anne Frank might have been gay without explicitly approving of or denying it. It does seem to think it's at least possible though because it seems to regard a teacher dismissing the possibility out of hand as a bad thing. Loki (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Homosexual urges in a 15-year old girl are perfectly normal and do not establish homosexuality. How many times are we going to debate this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Let me be clear: I do not object to any mention of the nature of the material that Otto Frank redacted, as long as it is well-supported by reliable sources. I do object to using that as a reason to categorize Anne Frank as a lesbian without substantial additional information, which I can't imagine popping up at this ;ate date. The matetrail we have is just not sufficient to make that categorization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

To respond to the question How many times are we going to debate this?, we have had a discussion here (Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5#Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020) that ended preemptorily after inaccurate statements from Guy Macon that PinkNews was the only source discussing Frank's sexuality, another previous discussion here (Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 5#Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019) where only OR/PRIMARY sourcing was offered, and two brief discussions on Category pages (Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 4#Inclusion into Category:LGBT Jews and List of LGBT Jews Talk:List of LGBT Jews#Anne Frank) that were again based on OR. Currently I for one am not advocating the inclusion of a category or of an identity label in wikivoice, and unless there's a discussion that wasn't linked above, I think the present instance would be the first discussion of this content question based on the actual RS. (Given the poor quality of many of the !votes, however - not yours, BMK - I have a feeling this won't be the last such discussion, particularly as the sources on this are likely to continue to improve; the Palgrave Handbook of Holocaust Literature and Culture, published this year, seems to be the first weighty tome to take up the issue, for example.) Newimpartial (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:UNDUE. CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the very good reasons as outlined above. If I'm honest, this discussion is making me feel rather uneasy; here we are, 75 years on, drawing interpretations on a child's sexuality based on nothing other than a close bond she shared with another female. Who the hell cares, in this day and age, what her sexuality was? And why the hell are we trying to sexualise a child by pigeon holing her as either gay or straight? Who are we to assume her sexuality? She may've identified as straight for all we know. I'm sure there are plenty of people, past and present, who've experimented with gay sex or who have been attracted to someone of the same gender, and who still identify as straight. Unless there are reliable sources to the contrary, let's leave her be and stop trying to focus on this rather irrelevant part of her life. Cassianto 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, per policy, we should be basing our content decisions on what the independent, reliable sources say and not on what our editors feel. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to WP:BLUDGEON every oppose !vote with essentially the same comment? You are not basing your decision on what the source says. You are taking a source that talks about about feelings that pretty much every normal 15 year old girl experiences and using WP:SYNTH to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source -- that Anne Frank was bisexual. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not done the thing you say I have done - please see my comment here. As far as BLUDGEON goes, I believe that while I have added more distinct comments on this discussion, that you have added more lines of text scattered through the various !votes (including directly repeating yourself at length). Is this a BLUDGEON contest? :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be included. It's creepy, Newimpartial, being this obsessed over a child's sexuality. Cassianto 15:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And now you have made a DUE argument, rather than an argument from your feelings I would be happy to discuss DUE, as long as we can be CIVIL about it.

But before you cast any further ASPERSIONS, please note that (1) if you had read the op-ed sources, you would understand that many contemporary Jewish people, in particular, find Frank's discussion of her sexuality empowering in coming to terms with their own sexuality, and (2) literally the whole reason I am here is that Guy Macon used his misreading of the PinkNews piece (cited in the earlier 2020 discussion) as a straw man reason to limit the reliability of PinkNews on the RSN, until this discussion was recently reopened. The temporary constraint on using PinkNews as a source had no valid justification and resulted from a brief, misleading and sloppy RSN discussion. As a result of the recent, more fulsome discussion, I have followed the links offered to correct this misperception at source: namely, that PinkNews was labeling Frank as "bisexual" - which they don't - and that PinkNews was the only source to discuss the implications of Frank's unexpurgated diary for queer experience - which it never was. So please leave your assumptions at the door, Cassianto. They don't become you. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What am I assuming, exactly? This'll be the fifth time we have discussed this child's sexuality and each time there was no consensus to identify her as LGBT. You cite Pink News as the source, a gay newspaper. Of course they're going to say that in their opinion, she was LGBT. They don't exactly discuss the shipping forecast, do they. I'll say it again: just because something exists, that doesn't make it a benefit to the article. You may also want to check "Pink News" here and here with regards to it being a reliable source. Cassianto 15:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

My reliable, non-LGBTQ source is but, following best practice, I am seeking consensus on inclusion *first* rather than launching on any BOLD adventure. And there is no policy-compliant basis for excluding "gay newspapers" as reliable sources, so I'd suggest that you check your privilege on that issue.

And in terms of CIVIL, what you said earlier was It's creepy, Newimpartial, being this obsessed over a child's sexuality. If by now you recognize that that comment is inaccurate and cites inappropriate ASPERSIONS, then I suggest you strike it through. You are assuming that I am "obsessed over a child's sexuality", with no evidence or apparent self-awareness whatsoever. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Again you say "My reliable, non-LGBTQ source is religionnews.com" Again I tell you here is what Religion News had to say:

"Otto Frank picked up her diary, and he read it -- and he did something -- that word that we have heard so often recently.

"He redacted her diary.

"He edited out many passages: about Anne's conflicts with her mother, Edith; about her emerging sexuality, especially where she embraces her bisexual longings."

Again I tell you that multiple high-quality academic sources that say that it is perfectly normal for a teenage girl to have sexual feelings towards other girls. If that's what makes you bisexual, then well over 90% of the female population is bisexual.

In my personal opinion this continual focusing in on the one small part of Anne Frank's Diary that touches on sexuality -- how many discussions have we had on this so far? -- really is creepy. If some Nazis had murdered me at the age of 15 you would have found some strange shit left in my diary. Like Anne Frank, I was young, confused, going through puberty, and exploring all sorts of odd ideas on topics that were, at the time, pretty much a mystery to me. But that was just a small part of that diary. Unlike Anne Frank, large portions of my diary at the age of 15 documented my obsession with anything that contained a 427 Hemi V8 --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I was not for a minute suggesting that you were creepy, more so the need and persistence of this subject to be discussed on this talk page for the fifth time! The fact I'm using your name is not an indication that I am talking about you, Newimpartial, more that I am talking to you. It's called direct dialogue, get it? So as far as strikes are concerned, no, not applicable. Like it or not, I find a five-time repeated conversation about a dead child's sexual orientation, odd. My view, of course, would be entirely different if she was an iconic representative for the LGBT community, such as Turing or Wilde, who both suffered for their sexualities. Then absolutley, I would expect to see things being focused on their sexual orientations. But this? No. Cassianto 16:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

None of the previous discussions has more than a handful of participants, nor were any of the other RS cited besides PinkNews (which Guy Macon mischaracterized on this page, and other participants simply parroted without examining the sourcing for themselves).

What I am asking you to do, Cassianto, is to read the secondary sources (including the op-ed) for yourself before imposing your subjective judgement about the importance of one or another LGBT "icon". Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason why her sexuality has been persistently discussed is because it has been persistently censored -- by her father, by editors, by the public. And maybe she would be an iconic representative for the LGBTQ community if people were not creeped out by focussing on the reality of the sexuality of young girls. She certainly wasn't. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's "creepy" to be discussing a child's sexual orientation. She was 15 for heaven's sake! That is below the age of consent in nearly all countries, and certainly in all orientations. If you now tell me that it's not, and that it's perfectly normal to be discussing a child's sexual preference, I'm bowing out. This is too much, even for me, and I like a good debate. Cassianto 17:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not discussing underage pornography; we're having one of thousands of discussions about adolescent sexuality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as PinkNews is concerned, please see the ongoing RSN discussion here, which is what brought me here in the first place. The outcome of the previous discussions resulted from the groupthink of a small number of editors, based on Guy Macon's misreading of an article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC) RSN link added by Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I misread nothing, and I reject the assertion that when an author chooses to show images of Twitter tweets that the author has zero responsibility for the content of those tweets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you stated One example is enough. PinkNews is the only source that claims that it is an established fact the Anne Frank was bisexual. As has been pointed out to you by others, this statement is false; per AGF, I assume that you misread (or misconstrued) the article which, like many contemporary journalistic sources, includes tweets as counterpoint to the content without assuming that they offer "established facts". Your reading is simply mistaken, and ignores both the headline and the text of the article in quite irresponsible fashion. (You also implied that PinkNews was the only reliable or independent source to bring attention to the question of Frank's sexuality and its suppression in the editing of the diaries; your implication has not been true for years and should be obviously untrue since this discussion went more mainstream in 2018). Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, I find your comments problematic in the vein of Bisexual erasure and Lesbian erasure. It sounds like you are minimizing her homosexual feelings when you characterize them as "nothing other than a close bond she shared with another female" and compare them to "experiment" by those who identify as straight. You're right that we don't know how she identifies, but the sexuality of a girl is not irrelevant to her life and it is not "creepy" to discuss it. Anne Frank had sexual agency and we will not censor her because that makes you uncomfortable. Speaking of the omitted original text, Miep Gies, who saved Frank's diary, said that "Anne's ideas were such treasures that leaving out one of them . . . would mean a great loss to the world." Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know how she identified then how do you know she'd identify as LGBT? She might not have. What then? Who are you to assume someone's sexual orientation? I know at least three people who've been in a gay relationships and who are now in a heterosexual marriage, and who have children. They identify as straight. Afford the poor girl a bit of dignity, based upon the fact she cannot speak for herself, and leave any interpretations at the door. Cassianto 17:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said anything about how she identifies. I said she had homosexual feelings, which by definition are what she described. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, that does not make someone gay. At 15, hormones are flying everywhere. I think it was Beyond My Ken who said that this was perfectly normal, and indeed it is. But this is not her coming out story. The fact someone has "homosexual feelings" at 15, that's it for life then, is it? Cassianto 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, this is getting tedious. You're not hearing me. I am arguing that we should include her own words (where she describes her homosexual feelings) without us characterizing them as "homosexual", "bisexual", or anything. No one is saying that having homosexual feelings makes someone homosexual. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, and how does that aide our understanding of Anne Frank, the Jewish diarist, exactly? Be honest, it doesn't, does it. This will not benefit the article at all - shock horror, a prepubescent teenager with hormones bouncing around everywhere, saying she quite fancies one of her female friends. What else will be putting down under "feelings"? The list is positively endless. If she had had a full-blown lesbian affair, certainly at that age, fine, but she didn't. Where do you draw the line in terms of mentioning the other things in her life that she thought about but didn't end up fulfilling? Cassianto 19:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, this text about sex was singled out for redaction in the original publication; RS give weight to this text by discussing the fact that it was redacted in the original publication; RS give weight to this text by discussing the censorship battles in schools, RS give weight to this text because it is about her best friend (who has written extensively about their relationship), RS give weight to this text because of its homoeroticism; RS give weight to this text because of its frank and relatable discussion of adolescent female sexuality. RS are interested in her sexuality for the same reason RS are interested in a little girl in the context of the Holocaust; this is the experience of an innocent human being in horrific circumstances. Her humanity is what draws us into the story; that includes her sexuality. Why are you so focused on excluding this particular text, out of all the text in the article? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, no, her sexuality does not "draw us into the story", far from it. She was 15. Discussing her sexuality is hugely inappropriate. Cassianto 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, so your reason for opposing the text is because it is "hugely inappropriate". What Misplaced Pages policy are you basing this on? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I find this whole thread "problematic". I find it frankly offensive for you to assert that I am wanting to erase LGBT history by not wanting to discuss the sexual orientation of a dead child who is not here to identify for herself. Not only that, but how does this spurious claim by a non-reliable source that Anne Frank was gay - simply because she was attracted to another female - help us understand Anne Frank, the Jewish diarist? Cassianto 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you won't read the reliable sources that are offered to you you won't find the answer. And none of the sources are saying that "Ann Frank was gay". But you can't find that out for yourself, because you refuse to read the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, ah, "Religious News", that well-known, centuries-old, reliable source that no one has ever heard of. Whilst I appreciate the list is not exhaustive, it's not even listed here for us to be able to judge if it's reliable. Get it listed as a RS and you may be in business, but only if others feel it's worth being mentioned. I don't. Cassianto 17:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not the way our sourcing policy works, but thanks for playing. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, I did not do what you are accusing me of doing. Please focus on your problematic statements rather than your personal discomfort at having them pointed out. I am arguing that Frank's own words about her own sexual feelings should be included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, do you not find it uncomfortable to be discussing (for the fifth time) the sexual orientation of a deceased child? If not, why not? Again, who cares whether she was straight, gay, bisexual, gender-queer, non-binary, questioning, or anything else (I don't know the full list, my apologies). She was a child. This topic should not even be up for discussion, unless it can be reliably proved that she identified as any of the above. And by "reliably proved", I mean a proper, reliable source. Not a religious newspaper that is owned by the same people who own Reddit. Cassianto 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, as I said, I am arguing that Frank's own words about her own sexual feelings should be included, and notice that in my !vote I said that we cannot characterize her sexuality. So, are you ok with including her own words about her sexual feelings? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, sorry, what are her words? Cassianto 18:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, if you haven't read the source you shouldn't be participating in this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I read them, but I wanted you to tell me again. And don't tell me where I can and can't participate. Thanks. Cassianto 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of ownership, Cassianto, Religion News is not Reddit, and has editorial oversight. And the author of the piece, Jeffrey Salkin, is recognized as one of the most thoughtful Jewish writers and teachers of his generation and is therefore an "acknowledged expert in a relevant field" in the sense required by WP:RS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We really shouldn't base any assertions of sexuality on the wartime diary of a 15 year-old. Most people of that age have feelings which, in the fullness of time, don't come to anything. We wouldn't normally use this kind of thing to draw conclusions. To give a modern analogy, many teenage diaries will include expressions of undying love for some adult singer or other celebrity. Would we use this as justification for saying the teenager was sexually attracted to older people? No, of course we wouldn't. Was Anne Frank LGBT? She might have been but the sad truth is that no-one will ever know because the Nazis denied her the chance to find out, and that's what we should concentrate on. Neiltonks (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, per policy, we should be basing our content decisions on what the independent, reliable sources say and not on the original reasoning of our editors. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per many good reasons expounded above. Zero 08:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support both text about her best friend Jacqueline van Maarsen and text about the redacted pages where Frank expressed attraction to van Maarsen.(Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds) We may also add that she wrote that she loved Peter Schiff, and Peter van Daan did not live up to him. While we cannot characterize her sexuality, we should include information about these important relationships in her life. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as Neiltonks wrote above, we really shouldn't base any assertions of sexuality on the wartime diary of a 15 year-old. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. We should use independent, reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

...which are lacking in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What is your rationale for excluding "Religious News" as an independent RS? The reason can't be that its analysis is based on "the diary of a 15 year old girl", because that is literally what most of this article (and the Notability of the article's subject) are based on. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to exclude Religious News on topics that RN actually talks about. I do want to exclude any attempt to start with that RN actually talks about (feelings that pretty much every normal 15 year old girl experiences) and use WP:SYNTH to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source -- that Anne Frank was bisexual. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

But I am not proposing to do that. I said, in my very first contribution on this Talk page, To be clear, I am supporting inclusion of the material; this is not a proposal to use any specific label for Frank's sexuality, which is a question demanding more nuance and discussion. I am seeking inclusion of the material, based on the reliable, independent sources. What language should be used is a secondary question, that depends on what the sources actually say as well as LABEL and NPOV policies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose not seeing any academic sources or a sources anyone would use for a BIO.--Moxy 🍁 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Moxy: As I pointed out above, the current(non-BLP) article currently has 127 citations, of which at most 29 are from what could be charitably termed "recent" scholarly sources (from the last 20 years). Why are you placing more stringent requirements in this case? Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Kolya Butternut—it is not a matter of "minimizing her homosexual feelings". It is a matter of not recognizing "her homosexual feelings". Sexual orientation is a common theme in 2020. Our present concern with sexual orientation should not cause us to reevaluate the past—unless there is good reason to do so. The support for any such assertion as is being contemplated should require substantial sourcing. Attraction for someone of one's gender need not be explained as a homosexual attraction. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Bus stop, we should be following reliable sources and not the feelings of editors in this matter. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

...which you are failing to do. You start with a source that talks about feelings that pretty much every normal 15 year old girl experiences and use WP:SYNTH to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source -- that Anne Frank was bisexual. The source doesn't say that. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I am becoming quite challenged by your poor reading comprehension. I am not stating, or implying, that Ann Frank was bisexual. I am not suggesting that this article should say so either. And neither do the sources under discussion in this section make that claim. What they say - and what I say - is that Ann Frank's sexuality was discussed in the first draft of the diary, was removed by the time the diary was first published, was restored in later publications of the diary, and is of interest and relevance to later readers, particularly Queer Jewish ones. How you turn this into either myself or e.g. Religion News claiming that "Ann Frank was bisexual" is beyond my understanding and seems to be a problem lodged in your reading comprehension, to AGF. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Religion News" is a blog titled "Martini Judaism". It calls Anne Frank a "Jewish butterfly". Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't - take a look. And so what if it does. Are you hostile to metaphor? Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "hostile to metaphor". I'm opposed to the flimsy reasoning supporting an alternative sexual orientation. "Religion News Service Launches "Martini Judaism" Blog by Jeffrey K. Salkin" Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but Religion News isn't a blog, as you stated earlier. It has editorial oversight. And Jeffrey Salkin is reconized as one of the most thoughtful Jewish writers and teachers of his generation and is therefore an "acknowledged expert in a relevant field" in the sense required by WP:RS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What is going on with this discussion? Editors keep arguing against saying she was bisexual when no one is saying we should say that, and editors are arguing against the use of the word "homosexual" as it is defined (although I have not suggested we use the word in the article). Bus stop, you said Attraction for someone of one's gender need not be explained as a homosexual attraction. That is one of the definitions of "homosexual", which is different from homosexual orientation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per DUE, WEIGHT, etc, as well as other, very good reasons above. One reference in a source that may be reliable does not mean we should include the information here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What about the article in the Palgrave Handook of Holocaust Literature (Springer, 2020)? It is by J Krongold and entitled "Anne Frank and Wartime Experimentation". Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, could you please give me a page number which discusses where Frank 'outs' herself? If not, can you explain why you have raised the question of this work? Having read through one of the chapters referred to above, I am mystified by why the work has been mentioned; there was no reference to sexuality what I have read.(It's not a great idea to point to a whole book and expect people to change their minds - you have to give us a little better information to work with). Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. I didn't have access to the source (could barely find the citation), and I thought it was related to the direction of work represented by this and this, but at a higher level. I was mistaken. Now that I have found someone with access, I will strikethrough my earlier comment. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to WP:BLUDGEON us by asking that question after every oppose !vote?

Given your history of confusing what a source actually says with your conclusions based upon your reading of the source, may we please have a direct quote where Krongold says that Anne Frank was lesbian or bisexual? I don't think it is reasonable to expect us to read lengthy document (some of which Google Books won't display) looking for the materiial that you claim exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice copypasta. What part of I am not saying that we should refer to Frank as "bisexual" or "queer" do you not understand? Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Guy Macon: I found another RS saying she discussed sexuality (hers and others') in the diary: BBC: Anne Frank's 'dirty jokes' found in hidden diary pages, May 2018 and another: Review in The Guardian: Anne Frank: the real story of the girl behind the diary, May 2019. GPinkerton (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are well known sources, and suitable for supporting a claim that Anne Frank talked about sec=x in her Diary. They don't support the claim that Anne Frank was a lesbian. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A claim which nobody in this discussion is making. I quite clearly specified "support inclusion of material" based on what the independent, reliable sources actually say, not that anyone has claimed that she was "a lesbian" - which is truly the dry-est of straw men. Nor have I proposed adding labels or categories FFS. All I want is to follow the relevant sources.Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please look at the link that is the very first thing in this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we are all discussing my statement Support inclusion - as far as I can tell, the pieces in Gay Star News, AfterEllen, and Religion News Service are all RS, which makes inclusion of this interpretation reasonable. I don't support the use of op-ed material in biographies (and this is a biography though not a BLP), but the existence of op-eds in Haaretz, Times of Israel, and sbs.com.au all support the inclusion of the material as DUE, so long as non-op-ed sources are the ones actually cited. To be clear, I am supporting inclusion of the material; this is not a proposal to use any specific label for Frank's sexuality, which is a question demanding more nuance and discussion.

What do you think we are discussing? Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Further comment @Guy Macon:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Cassianto: All of you have deployed the argument "but homosexual feelings are normal in adolescence so Anne Frank was normal". My question would be: at what age are they not "normal"? Does "normal" = exclusively heterosexual? Is everyone exclusively heterosexual until proven "abnormal"? GPinkerton (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly "normal" in this context is code for "not worthy of discussion in an encyclopaedia", though who knows why another term wasn't chosen, like "fluff". Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Read Demographics of sexual orientation to find statistics on sexual orientation.

Ignoring Newimpartial's snarky comment above, If well over 90% of the population shares a trait, that is what we call "normal". I never claimed that Anne Frank was a heterosexual. I argue against anybody that wanted to label Anne Frank as a heterosexual; there are no reliable sources that support the claim. I also reject the notion that abnormal is the opposite of normal. The correct phrase would be "relativity rare". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The page you pointed to gives an estimate of 8% of Dutch women identified as lesbian or bisexual. How rare is "relatively rare"? How rare does something have to be to be normal? GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Further further comment @Newimpartial: Are sure Krongold 2020 is the right paper? I don't see it here GPinkerton (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Of all the many volumes of work written about Frank why would we consider this disputed material to be significant enough for inclusion. When we zoom out and say this is a summary of all the important work on Anne Frank is anyone going to reasonably say, "too bad the editors left this material on the floor"? Even if we take as a given that the sources here pass RS, that doesn't mean the overall topic is DUE for inclusion. Springee (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Germany articles
• Mid-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• FA-Class Netherlands articles
• All WikiProject Netherlands pages
• FA-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Mid-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• FA-Class Jewish Women articles
• High-importance Jewish Women articles
• FA-Class children and young adult literature articles
• High-importance children and young adult literature articles
• FA-Class Women's History articles
• High-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• FA-Class Women writers articles
• Mid-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• Selected anniversaries (July 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2015)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2016)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2017)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2019)