Talk:The Diary of a Young Girl

message: See extensive discussion at Talk:Anne Frank#Removal of “speculative content”. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion 

message: The word :Jewish (or Jewish girl) is not mentioned in this entry, why is that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.8.108 (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word :Jewish 

message: The article contains borderline holocaust denial type claims about the diary supposedly being written in a pen that wasn't invented yet:
: Römer ordered a second investigation, involving Hamburg's Federal Criminal Police Office (Germany) (Bundeskriminalamt (BKA)). It was determined that parts of the diary were written with ballpoint pen ink, which did not exist prior to 1951. Reporters were unable to reach out to Otto Frank for questions as he died around the time of the discovery.[70]
The claims here are facially ridiculous, the diary was first published in Dutch in 1947. How could it have been fabricated with a ballpoint pen post 1951 when it had been published in Dutch for years earlier? My assumption would be that a holocaust denier looked up the English publication date of 1952 and tried to make a claim of it being manufactured with a technology post 1945 but pre 1952. But this is ridiculous as, again, it was not first published in English, we have year 1947 edition prints of the book in Dutch. The claim in the article is misleading, and either needs to be removed, or debunked. This information is already being cited in far right holocaust denial memes, it is deeply irresponsible to include it without a debunking and lend credence to such nonsense.2601:140:8900:61D0:A098:6DB2:F89A:6CCF (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The source is quite nuanced and indicates the ballpoint comments in the text of the original manuscript (which must have been done after publishing of the first version) , but the suggestion here is that whole parts of the diary (let alone the published diary) are not authentic is not correct. Feel free to remove... L.tak (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't we include something debunking this? 

message: Are there any WP policies on autorship? Anne Frank Fonds [is clear] on additinal copyright holders for the two editions (47 and 91); they should be added too the infobox imho (same as Imagine now lists Yoko Ono) Ffaffff (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Holding copyright does not imply authorship. The same source states that Otto Frank & Mirjam Pressler held copyright because they compiled editions of the diary, but it does not suggest that they wrote additional text. - Ryk72 talk 20:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It does though: "The Berne Convention, adopted in 1886, deals with the protection of works and the rights of their authors." Authoring does not imply writing additional text. Ffaffff (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Combining those two sources to reach a conclusion not found in either would be :WP:SYNTH. Do we have a source which directly supports Otto or Mirjam as authors? - Ryk72 talk 01:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: of course. WorldCat is as authoritative as it gets (and the largest OPAC, and something you find in the authority control section of countless wikipedia articles), the OCLC probably the biggest non-profit libraries organisation on the planet. Ffaffff (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Has both down as having edited a particular edition; also has Susan Massotty as having translated it. And if we look at the broader "Anne Frank Diaries" subject, there are several persons listed for different editions. I would be reluctant to include on the basis of this source. Probably worth asking for input from more editors, perhaps at WP:RSN or another noticeboard. - Ryk72 talk 21:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, picking the right noticeboard is the difficult choice, I am pretty sure such problems must be common (copyright extensions and autorship). Can I ask you to take a look here too? Regardless of the authorship question per se, can we agree that the Foundation claims it to be so (for whatever reason)? Ffaffff (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree that, since 2015 or so, the Foundation has claimed that Otto Frank  (by virtue of his ), and should be regarded, for copyright purposes, as a "co-author" of that work. Also agree that the Foundation makes a similar claim about the work done by Mirjam Pressler in editing the later version. Those seem important, noteworthy claims, and we should cover them in the article; as we do. Not yet certain that those claims mean that we should include either in the Infobox's "author" field - the Infobox covers the first (1947) edition, not subsequent editions; reliable sources, including WorldCat, do not include either Otto or Mirjam as co-authors of that edition; the NYT source indicates that there is a difference of opinion as to the validity of the Foundation's claims; the Infobox field is a "plain English" author, not necessarily a "for copyright purposes" author (Noting, per NYT, the Foundation states that attribution on the books will not change, remaining as "Anne Frank" only). Could possibly conceive of an inclusion of Otto with explicit description of "editor" or "compiler"; but would still like to see what a broader section of the community thinks. Also agree that picking the right noticeboard is difficult. - Ryk72 talk 03:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: I am unable to do so but can someone please fix this page.  The Synopsis is clearly not the correct page and is full of graphic sexual language. 1.144.105.215 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been fixed. PhilKnight (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help