Talk:Anne Frank/Archive 1

message: Anee Frank
an undeniable girl
== Unsorted Discussion and Minor Issues == 
I read somewhere (the book actually I believe) that her father did not originally want to publish the diary and was later motivated to do so by others.  If someone can find any truth/sources to that I think the statement "Convinced that it was a unique record he took action to have it published." could use a little tweaking.  I'm not the man for the job sorry - anon
--------
I've removed the David Irving entry under 'references.' I know that if I justify this by saying that 'in my opinion holocaust deniers don't deserve a mention here', there will be endless numbers of protestors saying: well, that's your opinion; in my opionion he's just fine there. That's a major weakness of Wikipedia, and it crops up everywhere where value judgements - as opposed to purely technical/scientific/factual issues - need to be defended: claiming personal opinion as the final arbiter. I know also that someone will reverse it. And then I'll reverse that, and so on. I'm quite happy to have a look at the arbitration procedures on Wikipedia, and defend my decision at the 'next level' up. The trouble with this 'in-my-opinion'-business is that the person doing the opining remains anonymous; hence the rest of the community cannot form a judgement on the other aspects of this 'in-my-opinion': how much authority, knowledge, veracity there is behind the 'in-my-opinion'. (If I said I'm one of 'them' myself, the Dutch Jews who hid during the war, would that help?) (Ik zou dit ook in het Nederlands kunnen zeggen, en mischien zijn er ook nog eens andere joodse overlevenden die hier iets over zouden willen bijdragen.. Hun opinie zou ik graag horen.) I feel that in the weighing of the different opinions of what should and what should not go into this article, the voices of those involved, the Dutch Jewish survivors, (yes, we still exist) deserve an added authority.  
The other thing that bothers me about this article - about most Wikipedia articles - is the link-overkill. 'Façade' and 'dentist' and all the rest just don't need to be linked - it diffuses the reader's attention; serves no purpose.
current news:
Op zaterdag 9 juli wordt op het Merwedeplein een monument onthuld ter nagedachtenis aan Anne Frank. Van 1933 tot 1942 woonde Anne op het Merwedeplein. In het plantsoen waar haar bronzen beeltenis wordt geplaatst, liggen talloze voetstappen van haar.
Programma:
17.00 uur: ontvangst en welkomstwoord door stadsdeelvoorzitter Erik Koldenhof
17.05 uur: toespraak door Jacqueline van Maarsen, jeugdvriendin van Anne
17.15 uur: bijdrage van een islamitische en een joodse student in het kader van het project Tweede Wereldoorlog in perspectief*
17.25 uur: toelichting door initiatiefnemer Gert-Jan Jimmink
17.30 uur: onthulling van het beeld door burgemeester Job Cohen
Het officiele gedeelte van het programma wordt muzikaal omlijst door celliste Saskia Bergen-Boon, lid van het Koninklijk Concertgebouworkest.
Aansluitend is er een feestelijke receptie met traditionele klezmermuziek.
ifs-ffm
:Only Anne Frank has diary excerpts that show true proof that the experiences of her during the holocaust. 72.235.45.132
Hi,
When you get right down to it, Wikipedia is all about people's opinions and their interpretations of existing guidelines even though the process should be more scientific.  The articles are being written by people rather than robots, so the process is sure to have its flaws.  The rationale for including reference to Holocaust deniers is simply to give "both sides of the story".  I put the original Irving quote in, and I think it's relevant, as well as satisfying the Wikipedia convention of offering criticism where it exists.  The fact is that Frank's diary is considered a forgery by some people, and has attracted criticism by some groups since it was published.  The overall article addresses these opinions while also offering substantial information about how those opinions were refuted.  For example the comments of the Anne Frank House and the Miep Gies quote.  Those comments are meaningless in the article unless it also shows the type of negative comment that provoked these responses.  We need to know why Otto Frank took people to court, so that he does not look like he was overreacting.  We need to know why the deniers are dangerous so that we can oppose them, why Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, so that we can continue to support that stance, and why organisations such as Anne Frank House are so uncompromising in the way they handle denials, so that we as a society do not allow the deniers to get the upper hand.  We can only look at those "why"s if we also have access to what was said, and who said it.  The article is heavily in support of the authenticity of the diary, and the deniers, who continue to deny despite the overwhelming evidence available to them, really do look foolish.   The inclusion of references to Holocaust deniers does not undermine the legacy of Frank and her diary, nor it is included to be offensive to people like you who lived through those events and are obviously in a far better position to speak of them than people like me who were not even born when this happened.  I am sure you have more knowledge of the subject than most people who didn't live through what you lived through, and I would not presume to even begin to comprehend what it must have been like to live through those events, but if you are assumed to have "added authority" does that not place you in the position to impose your own natural and understandable bias upon the article?   I'm completely in favour of everybody having equal say in matters, and you do have as much right to delete text from an article as I have in including it in the first place, but I don't think anyone should presume to have the final say.  When you say that people will replace what you've deleted, and then you will delete it again, you are suggesting that you will not be respecting other people's opinions, even while you are insisting that other people respect yours.  I don't understand why you are criticising Wikipedia for accepting people's "value judgements" but then confidently assert that your own value judgements are more valid.  If you truly want this process to consider "purely technical/scientific/factual issues" as you stated, then value judgements should be kept out of it, and as such, yours are no more valid than are mine.  Or - mine are equally as valid as are yours.    
I think it's important that people know that the story of the Holocaust and Anne Frank's role in documenting it, are not automatically accepted as fact by some people.  It would be lovely if it was, but it's not, so I think we're better off dealing with it, than pretending it's not there.  I think by reminding people that there are deniers is healthy in allowing people to make up their own minds, but I think it could also make people more mindful of the need to refute their comments when they come along.  I'm sure the diary is going to provoke controversy for some people well into the future and I hope that future people are ready and able to defend the diary's veracity.  I would hate to see people become complacent in the future because society becomes too efficient at suppressing negative viewpoints.   In that sense the deniers are actually giving the diary more power, by protesting against it so stridently, but I would hate them to know that!  As the Irving quote is included in the text of the article, it is important that it also be supported with a link or reference, so that anyone who wants to check that Irving has been quoted correctly, can do so.  It does not mean his opinion is endorsed.  My personal opinion is that he is a loathesome creature with a specific agenda, but I also believe that ignoring him is far more dangerous than allowing him a forum where he can bring ridicule upon himself.  But this is just my opinion.  I've given my opinion at some length, not with the intention of boring you, and I hope that has not been the result,  but because I'm worried that if you feel that a link needs to be deleted, you might also be considering deleting sections of the article that I truly believe have value.    
Reading your comments I feel that you are personally offended, and I regret that you feel that way.  I worked extensively on this article along with another contributor, and believe me, we discussed at length what should and should not be included and never intended any reader to be affronted by what we wrote.  It then went through a lengthy Featured Article process where it was approved only after reaching agreement.  I personally believe that Wikipedia articles should adequately cover relevant differences of opinion and criticism, even where we as contributors and readers feel personally uncomfortable with the opinion being reported upon. 
On the subject of the excessive links I agree.  It's something that we just need to fix when it occurs but I don't think it's going to stop.  Rossrs 08:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

message: Regarding the so-called lost pages of the diary, it was my understanding that there were in fact 5 pages that Otto Frank did remove from the diary before it was paginated. These pages were, I believe, published in the German publication Het Parool. The Anne Frank Foundation sued them for copyright violation and lost, and supposedly these pages will be included in the latest versions of the Critical Edition of the diary. There is also supposed to be a facsimile edition coming out. The official version of these facts should be up on the Anne Frank Foundation (Anne Frank Fonds) web site.
The history of the diary is a lot more complicated than most people realize because Anne herself had begun rewriting it with a specific eye toward publication. In fact, she wanted to publish it while she was in hiding, but it was too dangerous. Therefore, what she left behind was, of necessity (and with no ill intent) heavily edited and pieced together. It's probably true that Otto Frank found ways to soften some of the harsh things she said, but keep in mind, had she lived, Anne may well have changed such things herself (for instance, she probably wouldn't have left Dr. Pfeffer's pseudonym as "Mr. Dussel" [Mr. Stupid, in German]).
In answer to another person's question, the copyright to the diary is owned by Anne's remaining family members who formed the Anne Frank Fonds (The Anne Frank Foundation) in Basel, Switzerland. As I mentioned above, they are quite aggressive in guarding her name and story, and her message to the world in general, and have undertaken frequent litigation against numerous parties (sometimes winning, sometimes losing).
I agree that this entry could be added to considerably and I would happily supply some material, though I have no official status as an Anne Frank scholar by any means.
The diary is fake, which has been proven several times. Otto Frank in fact hired a guy to write it, and later on this guy sued Otto Frank because he had not paid for the creation of the fictionary diary. Too bad the biased media has forgotten this...
::Shouldn't we note that the "study of authenticity" comes from the Institute of Historical Review, an organization dedicated to denying the Holocaust?  I think including it as a link without noting that context might be a little sneaky. Jwrosenzweig 20:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just thought I'd note that the edit history of that IP has a pattern of holocaust denial, rather than a pattern of lingustic review, historical document review, etc., or anything else that would indicate that they are a documents scholar seeking to correct errors.  Ronabop 09:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost pages and other matters 

message: I removed the photo of Anne Frank.  It was an excellent picture, but unfortunately I noticed elsewhere on the web () that the Anne Frank House appears to have very aggressive lawyers who threaten anyone who uses these images.  While our usage might well hold up as valid fair-use in court (I'm no expert on the matter), Wikipedia of course has no resources to fight this kind of battle, and the last thing we want is to attract legal threats from an organization which has already shown itself to be aggressive. --Shibboleth 02:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it - such a comparison isn't NPOV, and I don't think it fits anyway to compare her with pop stars. And I also doubt that in 50 years anyone will know Madonna or Britney Spears as much as Anne Frank is known today. andy 15:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright 

message: I know that there have been a few movies made of Ann Frank's story.  I don't know the details, but I think a link to IMDB would be appropriate. Chadlupkes 01:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie References? 

message: I think this article is shaping up nicely. However, I think the two paragraphs in the "Criticism..." section, beginning with "Holocaust deniers comment..." and ending with "...such a young and inexperienced writer." need some cleanup. My mind is kind of blank at the moment, but maybe someone else can give it a go:
* The designation "Holocause deniers" sounds a bit weaselish (is that a word?). All Holocaust deniers think that? Some of them? If so, who? At the moment it's ambiguous who exactly we're talking about here.
* The comments by Levin and Barryman seem out-of-place to me. I know the intent is to show praise for the excellence of the work, which is then used as a argument by the deniers, but it's a bit disorienting to see words of praise in de midst of an argument against the book. Maybe we can seperate the two, making it more like: "The book is praised because blah blah blah.", followed by: "However, Holocaust deniers point out that these qualities blah blah blah".
Hmmm, in the time it took me to write this, I could have done the changes myself. Ah, well... --Plek 13:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read over that about 50 times over the last couple of days thinking it looked wrong - you're right.  The sequence was out-of-place. I've restructured it as you suggested with the "praise blah blah" followed by the "denial blah blah" and that flows better.  Got rid of the weaselish holocaust deniers, (it was vague and unsupported), and a few other bits that didn't really fit, and replaced them with a couple of quotes from the Melissa Müller biography, that I think are more appropriate.   The whole article is so long... I've been trying to clip bits off here and there but it's not making it shrink very much!  Rossrs 14:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about deleting the entire "Fate of family and friends" section? It's good info in itself, but does it really add anything to the story of Anne Frank or the diary? Can we replace the section with a single external link? Also, I think ending the article with the authentication of the diary gives it a sense of closure; the "fate" section reads like a coda that may well be unnecessary..--Plek 15:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're the second person to suggest that.  Yes I like the idea of the authentication being closure. It's like the final word.  "it's authentic! end of story".  I think moving the "fate" section to a new page would work - anyone who wants to look at it can, anyone who doesn't want to, doesn't have to .... much like the Kylie Minogue discography link.  It'll need a new title though.   "Family and friends of Anne Frank"?  no I don't like that... "People associated with Anne Frank"?  Any suggestions? Rossrs 15:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something like this :
"In March 1945, a typhus epidemic spread through the camp killing an estimated 17,000 prisoners. Witnesses later testified that Margot fell from her bunk in her weakened state and was killed by the shock, and that a few days later Anne also died. They estimated that this occurred a few weeks before the camp was liberated by British troops on April 15, 1945, and although the exact dates were not recorded, it is generally accepted to have been between the end of February and the middle of March.  After the war, it was estimated that of 110,000 Jews deported from The Netherlands, approximately 5,000 survived.
The individual fates of Anne Frank's family and associates are discussed further. See main article: Anne Frank's family and associates" What do you think?  Rossrs 15:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, something like that. The spinoff article would need its own short intro, obviously, but after that it could be left to grow organically, I guess. Oh, and how about adding this article to WP:FAC when done? :-) --Plek 21:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved that section to a new article People associated with Anne Frank, and have done a bit more editing.  I can't help myself, I keep finding new things to put in.  The only major thing I've added is a quote from Miep Gies, plus expanded slightly on the Bergen Belsen paragraph.  Apart from that I can't think of anything else.  Thanks for the huge support and encouragement.  I will put it to WP:FAC in the next few days.  I'll let you know when I do. Rossrs 13:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if I may suggest a target for your relentless endeavours: think the "Diary" section is a bit short, at only two paragraphs, when compared to the other sections. Is there anything you can add about the things Anne wrote about during that period (i.e. before going into hiding)? This could be inserted as a third paragraph, between the current first and second. Also, the section title "Diary" is a bit, ehh, shortish, I think. "Beginning the diary", "Writing the diary", "Early diary entries"? Those are all crap, but something like that might be better than just "Diary". --Plek 16:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking the "Life Before World War II" section is a wrong section heading, because the period discussed goes past the beginning of the war.  Everything else I can think of for a heading sounds like crap. "Diary" - yes too short.  Well she didn't write much at all before going into hiding - it's really very short, and because it's not the part of the diary that is most famous, I think to enlarge that section without also expanding the "in hiding" part of the diary by the same proportion, would be wrong.  I'm thinking maybe the whole beginning section needs to be one section.  With the "Diary" heading removed.  Also I'm concerned about getting into too much more detail about the diary, because I can see someone objecting on FAC because I haven't included quotes. I left them out because, firstly I'm not sure if copyright allows us to quote from the diary, and secondly there's a huge wikiquote section anyway.  It's a problem, not sure how to deal with it.  Maybe the good old "Early life" as used in a zillion other articles, will work. I'll change it, but only because it's better than nothing.  If you can think of a better heading, or a better way of doing this, go on and do it, because I'm stumped. Rossrs 14:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust deniers... and other cleanup tasks 

message: I swapped the second and third paragraph around to get a better ending, but it's still not perfect and a bit disjointed now. I like the idea to end with the "success" of the Anne Frank House as a major tourist attraction, but the connection with the first paragraph should be restored. Any suggestions? --Plek 23:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to admit it, but the person who objected was right about the Legacy being in the wrong place :-(  But now moving it causes another problem  - the sequence is out. It goes 1957, 1963, 1960 and it goes Anne Frank House, Anne Frank Fonds, Anne Frank House.  Anne Frank Fonds really must go at the end, I think.   What if we do some more research and find something positive to say about Anne Frank Fonds.  Nothing big, just a couple of sentences.  Put it at the end so the sequence is right - there must be something good someone has said about it.  That way we can end it on a positive note. Does that sound ok to you? Rossrs 08:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've taken a look at the Fonds' annual reports, but couldn't find much that was particularly worth mentioning here. I might be wrong, but it feels like it's being run by "suits", and it doesn't seem to be a very exciting organisation. They themselves say that "The AFF works substantially behind the scenes."  Maybe we could mention the exhibition in the Washington Holocaust Museum, or list the projects worldwide that the Fonds is sponsoring (see bottom of annual report). Hmmm, I dunno. --Plek 10:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's pretty good actually.  What about... delete the criticism about the amount being spent - that was one sentence I found in one book.  Even mentioning it is probably unfair, because I couldn't find anything to back that up.  So removing it completely would be justified.  Or it could be abbreviated to "After negative comment about the distribution of funds in 1997, the Fonds ... etc etc did all sorts of wonderful things, and in 2003 they provided financial assistance to projects such as .. etc etc".  Keeping it neutral, just a summary of what they are doing.    That fits better with the heading "Legacy". Especially if the emphasis is put on which countries have benefited ie how far reaching the legacy has become.  Who would have thought a diary written in Amsterdam in 1944 would help children in India in 2003?  That is amazing, and worth mentioning. I personally find the Medical Funding of the Righteous Among the Nations very interesting.  Whether it needs to be included, I don't know.  Maybe it's useful because it demonstrates a different focus to the Anne Frank House.  The bit about the Fonds not being legally bound to divulge, would then become "fluff" and could be trimmed or removed. Rossrs 13:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go for it! The Righteous Among the Nations have their own article here, so it adds another link as well. BTW, I am looking into the case of the "missing 5 pages" at the moment. I think this could and should be described, extending the last, short, paragraph in the "Publication" section. When I find out when and why Mr. Suijk deciced to hand over the pages to whom (), I'll writes something about it. --Plek 07:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: have done. the style is a bit like a police report, but basically ok. might need tweaking. Rossrs 10:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Legacy" section 

message: The following link has been added and removed twice:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html
Removal of the link has been classed as 'reverting vandalism'. I'm no expert on the subject of Anne Frank so perhaps someone could explain why a link to this particular, albeit controversial, website should be so classified. Arcturus 23:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it is because neo-Nazis keep trying to insert Holocaust Denial material into the article which has already been debunked in the article itself. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the gest of it. It would make an interesting reference in the Holocaust denial article as an example of the deniers' practices, but it has no value whatsoever here. The authenticity of the diary has since been proved by forensic research and declared as such by a court of law. Finally, the fact that the link was added by a first-time editor with the charming name "" should be a hint as well... --Plek 23:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Also the article was written in 1982, during the time the diary was under closest scrutiny and before its authenticity was confirmed by the courts, so apart from anything else, it's redundant.  It's also something of a rambling, self-contradicting, unreferenced and unsubstantiated mess, but that's another story. There is perhaps a place for it as an illustration of Holocaust denial, but it immediately reeks of POV and "agenda" when placed specifically into an article such as this. Rossrs 08:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing link

message: Mel suggested placing my reasons here for reinserting the dates in the intro. Biographies on Wikipedia always (that I have seen) include the date of birth, and death where appropriate, in the intro, as do other encyclopedias. Mel said something about the MoS saying that only the years should be used, but I've never seen that, and if it does say that, it shouldn't. An article going through the FA process, which is the standard all articles should adhere to, would fail without the full dates after the name. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:And I meant to say: as this is a featured article, the quality that allowed it to be given that status should not be lowered after the fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
#No, sorry, I must have expressed myself unclearly.  In fact I meant to invite you to commentat the talk page of the MoS, where I've started a discussion on my suggested style of presenting dates .
#It's not that the MoS recommends it, it's that my approach is consistent with the MoS (at least that's how I read it, and the last time I checked the discussion there, that was the consensus).  I'd like to see it made standard, but I doubt that that will happen.  people would rather leave it open.
#Just to recap my reasons for it: it makes the summary (especially on large articles) cleaner and less cluttered; it allows the summary to summarise what is provided in greater detail in the article.  It's also, in fact, the standard approach taken in most print encyclopædias that I've looked at (the ones that bother with anything more than the years, that is, which admittedly are in the minority).
#Would it really stop an article reaching FA status? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates in the intro

message: The article says, "They estimated that this occurred a few weeks before the camp was liberated by British troops on April 15 ..." According to the article on Auschwitz, the camp was liberated by Soviet troops, not British, and on  January 27, not April 15. Could someone clear this up? Haakon 9 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
::Hello Haakon.  You're right about Auschwitz being liberated by Soviet Troops, however Anne and Margot Frank were transferred from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen where they died.  Bergen-Belsen was liberated by British troops on April 15, 1945.  Rossrs 9 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)
::: Ach, I should have read more thoroughly, you (and the article) are of course right. Thanks. Haakon 19:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you are very welcome!  Rossrs 06:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberation of Auschwitz 

message: Is there a reason that no mention is made of the various movies about Anne Frank? The arts paragraph at the bottom of the article mentions a song by Outkast and other minor things, and yet nothing about the oscar winning Anne Frank movie that came out in the sixties. There have also been several versions since then. - Anon
::that's a good point, and not forgetting the rather good television production of a couple of years ago with Ben Kingsley.  Those other references you mention have been added since the article was featured.  I think adding the information about the films is appropriate especially in view of some of the obscure things mentioned.  Rossrs 08:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Movies?

message: Anne Frank is not German, every Jew and every German would freely admit that she was not. So please stop putting her in false categories.
:Why don't you do a poll of "every Jew and every German" first, and then get back to us? Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to a synagogue, a Catholic chruch and a Lutheran church. Ask everyone there if a Jewish person can be German, they will say no. German Jews don't even look like Germans, after someone Jewish leaves Germany they are not German anymore, if they are in Germany at the time then they can be considered German due to nationality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.112.49 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 July 2005.
Well at least the racism of this attempt to censor the article is now out in the open, as well as its peculiar illogic.  Apparently being German is racial (and that's merely a matter of how one looks — even the Nazis didn't think that), though one can have German "nationality" by virtue of geography.  The peculiar and obviously false notion that any Jew, Catholic, or Lutheran would agree that Jews can't be German doesn't warrant any serious rebuttal. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: While it is true that someone can be both Jewish and German, Anne Frank obviously picked up a good deal of Dutch nationality during her Netherlands years. Thus, it is more accurate to say she was Jewish, German, and Dutch. Nonetheless, since she was of more than one European nation, it would probably be simpler to call her a European girl and leave it at that. Europe is kinda molding into the European Union with a common currency, etc., so why not?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 08:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed all references to her being German

message: Other pages, however, were determined by German forensic laboratories in Wiesbaden to have been written in ballpoint ink. Ballpoint pens did not become available until after 1951.
This prompted media attention. On October 9, 1980, the New York Post ran a report titled: Anne Frank may not have inked that famous diary and stated: The results of tests performed at the BKA laboratories show that portions of the work [Anne Frank's diary], specially of the fourth volume, were written with a ballpoint pen.
(Redzen 11:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this neo-nazi junk.  See  for further ref. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't specifically have a problem with you addressing this particular issue and I am prepared to be open minded.  However, because it is contraversial and emotive, and casts doubt on what is "accepted" as truth, you need to be completely scrupulous in citing sources.  The source you have cited covers the first section of text, and that's fine, however the final three paragraphs, which suggest a conclusion has been drawn,  are therefore highly significant.   These comments/conclusions are not supported by any source.    Please cite a source for this additional information.  ie everything from "The court stated" through to "and not because of the content".  I've looked through a number of webpages related to the case, and found nothing that supported the last 3 paragraphs, so I look forward to being enlightened.  Thank you.  Rossrs 11:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Redzen has misstated the issue, and as it is currently presented in the article, it is misleading and full of inaccuracies that Redzen hasn't taken the time to correct.  He has merely inserted the usual neo-Nazi myths alongside an actual legal judgement.   None of Anne Franks diaries are written in ballpoint; note the misleading reference to "other pages", i.e. not her diary, and the further commentary about ballpoint pens which attempts to cast doubt on the diary.  In fact, two slips of paper, containing ballpoint pen written by someone other than Anne Frank, were inserted as bookmarks after the war, apparently by former Swiss custodians.  (See also: The Diary of Anne Frank : The Revised Critical Edition) Moving on, Robert Faurisson and Siegfried Verbeke are not historians as he claims.  Faurisson is a professor of literature at the University of Lyons, and Siegfried Verbeke is a publisher, both neo-Nazis.  Redzen calls the work of neo-Nazi's "critical analysis" (unsourced) and he provides no counterarguments to the so-called allegations.  This is an attempt to confuse an actual legal issue by introducting discredited, questionable, and suspect assertions that have been throroughly debunked. I have no problem with the issue being presented in a neutral format, but until that time, I will revert obvious unsourced propaganda on sight. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply Viriditas and I'll support you on this, although I would like to read Redzen's comments.  If the case needs to be mentioned at all it needs to be as brief and as neutral as the other cases mentioned.  I was concerned that Redzen's comments attached too much significance to the case itself, but also appeared to draw conclusions.  My understanding of the ballpoint pen issue is that there are a couple of notes in the margin of 2 pages, written in green ballpoint and of a completely different handwriting style. Regardless of what the New York Post speculated in 1980, the Dutch court has accepted that it's been added during the editing process and that it has never been published or attributed as Anne Frank's writing. Rossrs 12:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, well the ballpoint issue is minor.  I read that they were in the margins, but come to think of it, the Revised Critical Edition describes them as bookmarks.  Rossrs 12:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: additional info added

message: Redzen keeps adding a link to Castle Hill Publishers as his source.  The site is run by Germar Rudolf. --Viriditas  | Talk 22:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redzen's sources

message: Can we get this unprotected now? Lots of experienced editors are now aware of the edits and it seems to me this can be handled. Wyss 13:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? One other admin never even noticed the fact that it was protected, and he even missed my talk page comment saying that I reverted and protected it. So I guess protection isn't "protecting" it very well. Uncle Ed 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still protected... will someone unlock it please? Wyss 08:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect please

message: *Tis unfortunate, y'know
*That tragedy happened before you became famous
*Tis quite poignant, y'know
*That your fame was entirely posthumous
*All the same, for your wonderful idea, y'know
*We might as well honor you for those years
*We've been graced with your books, y'know
*To Annelies Frank, bonny cheers!
Rickyrab 05:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A toast in honor of Anne Frank, this [[Day of the Dead|Dia de los Muertos]]

message: I recently deleted the references to Kitty because they appeared in the paragraph discussing the early entries before Anne went into hiding. She did not use "Dear Kitty" during this time (only added the salutation to these entries when revising in 1944), so it wasn't appropriate to refer to Kitty in this paragraph. However, in such a thorough article as this, I really think Kitty should be mentioned somewhere. After all, it's the most famous word associated with Anne and her diary. But it should be mentioned in a more appropriate place. Not sure where though. (Marsoult 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kitty