Talk:Anne Frank

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)

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" [1] and the website for Anne Frank Fonds (the organisation which was established by her father) also uses "Annelies" [2]. 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)

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)

"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)

anne frank a feelings short story

Anne frank was a beutiful girl. she had loving friends until the storm of war came she was moved from her loving friends,moved from her great home all because of the evil monster hitler. She was trapped in the tiny box of the secret annex dark, damp, cold and squashed. The life of not being able to talk not being able to say a word in a place where no one noes where you are and no one can see anyone in the dark room being bored not being able to move much. Then she can hear German troops marching out side feeling when will they find me when will they shoot me or send me to the evil layer of the monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.156.46 (talk) 17:46, 13 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)