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 Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia'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 is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Germany FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands FA‑class This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Jewish history FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish Women FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Children's literature FA‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: 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 Wikipedia: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 Women's History FA‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. 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 articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:EngvarO spelling

"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)[reply]

[1].
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)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^talk 18:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^talk 20:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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."[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^talk 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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^talk 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose - Per WP:UNDUE. CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 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^Talk 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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^Talk 15:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reliable, non-LGBTQ source is [3] 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)[reply]

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."[4]

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[5][6][7] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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^Talk 16:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 17:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing underage pornography;[8] we're having one of thousands of discussions[9] about adolescent sexuality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[10] 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)[reply]

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[ation]" 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."[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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^Talk 17:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 19:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kolya Butternut, screw Wikipedia policy, this is about decency. It is grossly inappropriate to be speculating about a dead child's sexuality. Cassianto^Talk 08:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am not proposing that we speculate about her sexuality.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not proposing that we speculate about her sexuality, you are certainly doing a good imitation of it.

"There are plenty of other sources which give weight to her writings about her sexual feelings." -- Kolya Butternut 19:38, 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 17:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Anne Frank had sexual agency and we will not censor her because that makes you uncomfortable." -- Kolya Butternut 16:19, 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 Butternut18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"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..." Kolya Butternut 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Those do not appear to be the words of someone who is not proposing that we speculate about her sexuality. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Can you look past your projections and imagine another, simple interpretation? It's tiresome to explain myself when you haven't made the effort to interpret my words as I've said they're intended. AGF and such as? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. Ok then, so I have been saying that I am not proposing that we speculate about her sexuality (meaning sexual orientation) in the article. I'm fine with speculating about her sexuality and sexual orientation in the talk page if it advances the discussion without getting forumy. I am proposing that we include information about her sexuality (meaning sexual thoughts and behavior generally) in the article. And maybe she would become an LGBTQ icon if her sexual thoughts and behavior were discussed more (not that that is a goal). Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would she become an "LGBTQ icon", because she died in a concentration camp? She wasn't deported for reasons having anything to do with "sex" in any of its guises. The reason for mistreatment was Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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^Talk 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't read the reliable sources that are offered to you[12] 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)[reply]

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^Talk 17:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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^Talk 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, sorry, what are her words? Cassianto^Talk 18:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose per many good reasons expounded above. Zero^talk 08:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both text about her best friend Jacqueline van Maarsen[13][14] 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,[15] 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)[reply]
• 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) Striking !vote because I voted with a better rationale below --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Something that is true of 8% of the population is relativity rare compared to something that is true of 90%+ of the population. Something that is true of 8% of the population is relativity common compared to something that is true of 0.1% of the population. In absolute terms, 90% is certainly "common" and 0.1% is certainly "rare". How you would term 8% depends on the context. Again, you cannot take something that is true of 90%+ of females and use it as evidence of something that is true of 8% of females. But that's what breathless headlines like "As a Queer Jew, Learning Anne Frank Was Bisexual Is a Game-changer" (Haaretz) and "Anne Frank, My First Bisexual Hero" (Arre) are claiming. Please note that I didn't go searching for those headlines. I copied and pasted them from this very discussion.

If you are trying to imply something about my personal motivations (which is always a concern in discussions about these subjects), be aware that I have long supported equal treatment for the LGBT community and put in a huge amount of time campaigning against 2008 California Proposition 8. That's the direction of my personal bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I made an (embarrassing) mistake, and have learned my lesson. See above. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Oppose inclusion

Quoting BillsYourUncle, posting on the fringe theories noticeboard:

"This type of thing comes up again and again with historical figures. Unless there is an explicit description of actual sex described by either the historical person or eyewitnesses, the matter always amounts to the dubious practice of trying to guess someone else's inner feelings. I think we need to require that any source is a longterm historian who has thoroughly studied this particular person in depth, otherwise the author has absolutely no hope of knowing what Anne Frank was "really like". That means: 1) No dabblers who flit from one subject to the next, writing a book on a different subject every year. 2) No authors from outside the history field, in fact no one from outside the subfield of WWII or mid-20th century history. 3) Absolutely no political activists, novelists, playwrights, etc. 4) Preferably someone who has written at least three or four books on Anne Frank or a closely related topic. That means even if the source is an article in the NYTimes (normally an RS), if it was written by a fashion editor trying to link a historical person to their favorite political cause then that's just an opinion by someone who doesn't have anything relevant to say about the subject. This is frankly just the normal procedure for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to rely on scholarly academic sources written by respected specialists on a relevant topic."

In my opinion, BillsYourUncle hit the nail on the head. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, wait: do you get to !vote for other people, now? Do you have superpowers? Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted for myself, and in my vote quoted another editor who has not !voted. Do you have a problem with that? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee and Guy Macon, do I infer correctly that you oppose inclusion of sources which characterize Frank's feelings as "bisexual", but you have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies (or her best friend Jacqueline van Maarsen specifically)? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed "bisexual" because of no sources support it. Show me some reliable secondary sources that specifically and at length discuss Anne Frank's words about women's bodies and I will decide after evaluating those sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a yes in response to my question as asked. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I answered both of the questions you asked. The direct "[do] you oppose inclusion of sources which characterize Frank's feelings as "bisexual" (the answer is "yes") and the implied "you have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies" (the answer is "I cannot answer until I see what sources you want to use to support those claims")

It sounds like the answer to the second question was also "yes". It doesn't make sense to say that you cannot answer whether you have commented on something. You either have or have not commented. I'm feeling uncomfortable with the way you're talking to me. We're working towards the same goals I think.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies. I have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies for a reason. I have not commented on whether to include information about Frank's redacted words about women's bodies because I have not seen what sources you want to use to support those claims. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Are you ready to tell me what sources you want to use to support those claims? Please indicate not only the source ("I plan on using 800-page book X") but what part of the source. Please indicate the exact wording you propose adding to the article along with the soure(s) that you say support your proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I see now how you could have easily read my question to be more than yes or no. Combined with your other comments I thought you were being difficult. I assume now that you didn't look at my source because you didn't realize that if you click on the book title you would be directed to just a couple of pages about the censorship of the diary. I'm not proposing exact wording add this point. Along with the source in my !vote above, please see the sources at The Diary of a Young Girl#Bans (I think that article should be more specific about the text). Also The Nation.[16] While I would use the words "homosexual themes" in The Diary of a Young Girl, I would avoid that word in her biography; I am just using these sources to give weight to this portion of the expurgated text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The existing section about the unabridged text is only sourced to a short Guardian article; we shouldn't require different standards for the text about women's bodies. I already provided sources in my !vote above, but it is interesting to see that The Advocate merely describes the entry as "articulating Anne's feelings for another girl's body."[17] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything about any attraction to women's bodies in the sources posted in your !vote. Is the above link to The Advocate your source? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand where you're going with this. I don't know if this is pedantics. I don't recall using the word "attraction". I've provided three sources in my !vote in addition to The Advocate. At least three of the four sources discuss Frank's text about breasts and such. If we work towards including objective information about Frank's entries we might be able to satisfy some editors who insist of characterizing her sexuality when they find no mention of her feelings in the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the comments again I see that I did use the phrase "expressed attraction to van Maarsen". Maybe I was thinking that I wasn't talking about orientation, but I'm surprised I didn't reread my !vote at the time. I regret contributing to the semantics imprecision and confusion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This proposed addition appears to be very inappropriate, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Vanishingly few reliable sources discuss her sexuality and the ones that mention it merely mention it in the sense of it being highly speculative and based on flimsy lines of evidence, which means these reliable sources are using very poor quality evidence to synthesise a conclusion, see WP:SYN. Lots of straight women find other women vaguely attractive on an emotional or physical level but without any desire for an intimate encounter or relationship and indeed such women would recoil at the thought of such an encounter. Nobody knows Anne Frank’s sexuality due to very limited evidence and the young age she tragically died at.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A data point regarding 15-year-old girls; I showed this discussion to a good friend who, at the age of 30, is unambiguously lesbian. She made a comment that the passages about women's bodies in general and breasts in particular could very well just be the natural fascination girls who are just starting to develop breasts have regarding other girls who already have them. That's just one person's opinion, but it does make you stop and think. She also noted that sexuality changes as you mature, mentioning the stereotypical 8 year old boy who thinks girls are "yucky"[18] turning into a 16 year old who is fascinated by them. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR and not relevant. Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very "gal pals".[19] I would ask your lesbian friend if she had a "terrible desire" to kiss her boy friends (whom she was jealous over spending time with other girls) and would "go into ecstasies every time [she would see] the naked figure of a [man]", bringing her to tears. Or...ask a straight girl. But it doesn't matter what we think. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That policy only applies to article content, not talk pages, we are on a talk page here. Relevant original thoughts and opinions do have some minor relevance when it comes to determining consensus and the quality and reliability of sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the above discussion could do with more reference to Wikipedia policy and more reference to what reliable sources actually say.

Several editors above are indulging in WP:SYNTH themselves to dismiss what certain sources say. Pertinent here is doi:10.1080/10665684.2011.563182 that talks about the use of the diary in an educational setting and how to handle the issue of Frank's sexuality: it describes how a teacher dismisses the suggestion that Frank is gay, explaining rather that she is curious. It then goes on: "While curiosity is a plausible explanation for Anne's behavior, Eder's automatic denial of the students’ suggestion that the character might actually be gay is an example of the exclusion of the possibility of same-sex desire. If being gay were acceptable in this community of practice, then a teacher would at least acknowledge it as a possibility, instead of entirely dismissing it. A teacher response of, “Well, it's possible she's attracted to her friend, but it's also possible she's simply curious,” would make a difference in terms of the message provided to the students." Bondegezou (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Formulate a proper RfC that has explicit alternatives. That's how to resolve this issue, which has degenerated into an argument about what the argument is about. Zero^talk 14:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose inclusion She was too young and too isolated for us to know if she was bisexual or lesbian. My point is not that she wasn't; my point is that there is no way to know it for sure. And we should be silent about what cannot be known. Since there is no way to know, all claims about her sexuality are bunk by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the above, a proper RfC should be formulated, it’s getting muddled over what’s being argued here. QueerFilmNerd^talk 16:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to ping everyone who participated here to the RfC.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As someone who routinely edits sexuality topics, more than a few people asked me via email to take a look at this. No, I wasn't canvassed to comment a certain way. They simply wanted me to take a look, and didn't pile on my talk page with requests for me to do so, which I appreciate. I didn't want to because I have enough controversial topics to concern myself with. I wish I had not read any of this discussion. This is because it has some of the most misguided posts about sexuality I have ever read.

We have Guy Macon repeatedly stating "feelings that pretty much every normal 15 year old girl experiences." And at 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC), stating, "[S]omething that is true of 90%+ of females." Where are you getting this? High-quality sources have stated this, you say?

We have Cassianto stressing the word child, apparently not knowing the difference between child sexuality and adolescent sexuality, acting like Wikipedia shouldn't discuss adolescent sexuality...because "creepy." And, yes, Cassianto, despite this topic specifically being about Anne Frank, I think your comments about discussing the sexuality of 15-year-olds are quite clear. As seen by the links I pointed to, Wikipedia has articles on both child and adolescent sexuality. They are not the same thing. And it's common sense that adolescents/teenagers are sexual. There are certainly enough books, television shows, and films (fictional and non-fictional for each) incorporating adolescent/teenage sexuality because of this reality.

Regarding the arguments that pretty much amount to "they grow out of it" or "adolescents can't possibly have a solid sexual orientation"? People's sexual orientations/sexualities do not suddenly form at the magical age of 18. They are formed significantly before that point. People usually realize that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual before that point. And the biology of sexual orientation research is clear that sexual orientation is very likely biological (begins before birth, mainly forming in the womb), with social environment playing a minor role in the equation, especially for males (since it seems social environment may be more relevant for females in this regard). Ask yourselves if you truly believe that gay teenage boys sexually fantasize about teenage girls, or think about teenage girls in any truly sexual way that is not based on heteronormativity. What data states that they have a passing sexual attraction to teenage girls? What data states that it's standard for heterosexual teenage boys to sexually fantasize about other teenage boys, or that they have a passing sexual attraction to teenage boys? So why make it seem like it's standard for teenage girls to sexually fantasize about and/or be sexually attracted to other teenage girls? Because of the reported sexual fluidity of teenage girls and women? Yes, people can be confused about their sexuality as a teenager, or can be questioning, and the topic of sexual fluidity does exist, especially with regard to teenage girls and women. But researchers do not believe in stating that people "grow out of their sexual attraction." Stuff like ex-gay is fringe. And the Wikipedia article on it has a section on gay and lesbian teenagers. Because, you know, gay and lesbian teenagers do exist.

Sexual orientation is mainly stable. And for those, particularly women, it's supposedly not stable for, it's believed by enough researchers that these people may have been bisexual all along and did not have a sexual identity that aligns with their actual sexual orientation. Sexual identity and sexual orientation are two different things. Many gay men, for example, have identified as heterosexual. And in the case of prison sexuality, many heterosexual men relay that they weren't actually sexually attracted to the men they had sex with. Many or most of them fantasized about having sex with women during the act(s). Sexual orientation is all about the sexual fantasies -- what goes on in the mind.

At 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC), we have Bus stop stating, "Attraction for someone of one's gender need not be explained as a homosexual attraction." What? The definition of homosexuality is clear. If genuine romantic/sexual attraction is involved, that is homosexuality. And, of course, it's bisexuality if genuine romantic/sexual attraction to both sexes is the case.

Oh, and the Demographics of sexual orientation article is mainly based on sexual identity. We don't actually know what is in those people's heads. But, yes, the research does indicate that the vast majority of people are heterosexual.

I'm not commenting on whether or not to include or exclude the content in question. This discussion is too aggravating, and I don't want to get dragged into it beyond this post. No need to ping me. I can check back for replies, but I don't see myself responding extensively, which would include me pointing to academic sources to make my points very clear. There are some topics -- such as child and adolescent sexuality -- where there's just too much misunderstanding for me and others to get laypeople to understand (at least without taking up a lot of time). And, please, per WP:TALKO, do not break up my post to reply. If you reply, reply beneath my post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, for days we have been arguing over the inclusion of content regarding Anne’s sexuality. As it went on, it became very muddled about what the argument was about. Here is a proper RfC, which should have been done in the first place, with the two things we’re arguing over:

1. Should we include a label on Anne’s sexuality (e.g. bisexual, etc), which then places her in an LGBT category?
2. Should we include mention of Anne’s exploration of her sexuality with her friend which was removed and later re-added in a later edition?

QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to bullet (1), Yes to bullet (2), with the latter to be sourced and edited into the (currently weirdly specific and single-sourced) "genitalia" paragraph of the current article.
  I also think it would help the RfC if the two bullets were numbered (1) and (2). Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to 2, see rest of comment on 1: 2 is a big part of the story of the censorship of her diary and in particular why certain parts were censored. It's been covered in plenty of reliable sources and we should obviously mention it. Many of those same sources have also drawn the conclusion from the censored material that she was either definitely or possibly bisexual. I don't think "definitely" is supported by the underlying evidence but I could see "possibly" with attribution. Loki (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both In the larger picture of the person it's not clear either item is DUE. The first, thus far, does not have clear RS support. The second seems more like a coatrack than anything else. This seems like an agenda to shoehorn material into the article rather than to include it because normal reviews of all the volumes of work on the subject would include this. Springee (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a lot of speculation on the motives of editors, for a very small policy-relevant !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You think UNDUE is a small policy? Springee (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There are roughly 10 words clearly based on policy and more than 30 hinging on the motives of other editors, if you take a metrics-based approach. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, how about this. Wikipedia is not the engine of knowledge pulling the world to a new understanding. Instead Wikipedia is the caboose of knowledge. We wait for others to make it clear this content is the standard before adding it here. Springee (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, joy. We get to experience Newimpartial WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion by starting a new thread under every !vote that doesn't go his way again. I can hardly contain my enthusiasm. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Do try. Also, if you are making an implicit comment about the prior discussion, perhaps there is a pot::kettle point to be made, of some kind. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both points. I second Springee's sentiments, and the topic is aside from her fame — then, as now. (And, kudos, @Springee: for the apt train metaphor.) (Belatedly,) Lindenfall (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both
  User:BillsYourUncle, posting on the fringe theories noticeboard, explained how we should handle this far better than I could:

  This type of thing comes up again and again with historical figures. Unless there is an explicit description of actual sex described by either the historical person or eyewitnesses, the matter always amounts to the dubious practice of trying to guess someone else's inner feelings. I think we need to require that any source is a longterm historian who has thoroughly studied this particular person in depth, otherwise the author has absolutely no hope of knowing what Anne Frank was "really like". That means: 1) No dabblers who flit from one subject to the next, writing a book on a different subject every year. 2) No authors from outside the history field, in fact no one from outside the subfield of WWII or mid-20th century history. 3) Absolutely no political activists, novelists, playwrights, etc. 4) Preferably someone who has written at least three or four books on Anne Frank or a closely related topic. That means even if the source is an article in the NYTimes (normally an RS), if it was written by a fashion editor trying to link a historical person to their favorite political cause then that's just an opinion by someone who doesn't have anything relevant to say about the subject. This is frankly just the normal procedure for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to rely on scholarly academic sources written by respected specialists on a relevant topic.

  My name is Inigo Montoya. You deleted my coatrack. Prepare to be talked to death. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Still no. Enough of this bullshit. Guy (help!) 21:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  JvG, I askedvery nicely why you hold a sourcing standard for 2. different from that characterizing the rest of the article, and you have yet to answer. Could you be so kind? Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLUDGEON. Please stop this behavior. You had your chance to make your case in your !vote. Please let other editors have a chance to weigh in without being challenged by you. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Newimpartial, I already did, but you don't appear to like the answer. I can't really help with that. Guy (help!) 21:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are referring to this, it doesn't answer 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) in any way. The material already in the article concerns the same "historical figure" as this material, and you have made no argument why the standard for this topic should be different. All you did was handwave to "activist sources", but the source I have referenced consistently in this discussion, Religion News, is not in any sense activist and the column in question on Anne Frank is by a non-activist writer (I assume Jewish writers can still count as "non-activist") who satisfies WP:RS standards. So I really would appreciate an answer to my actual question, rather than an irritated handwave. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Newimpartial, put down the bludgeon. Guy (help!) 11:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. And I trust that the closer will treat JvG's !vote with the (policy-compliant) weight it deserves. Newimpartial (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Why does the section Anne Frank#Unabridged version mention Frank's entries about genitalia, "puzzlement" about sex and childbirth, but conspicuously leave out the entry about wanting to kiss and touch her friend, which was also expurgated?[20] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"[C]onspicuously", Kolya Butternut? Therein lies the problem. We live in an age in which everything (exaggeration) indicates homosexuality. (Just my opinion.) But Anne Frank didn't live in the age of everything (exaggeration again) being an indication of cisgender, transgender, transsexual, asexual, bisexual, homosexual, and myriad other sexual orientations. I will note that you are not complaining that "conspicuously" absent are references to her and her sister's menstruation. Why not—because our age is not as preoccupied with menstruation as it is with alternative sexual orientations? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources which reflect our "age" focus on sexuality, then we must as well. The focus is on objectively homoerotic behavior, not necessarily homosexual orientation. Note that the source below which I referenced gives much less weight to menstruation than to the entry about her erotic feelings. The sources about modern censorship typically focus on the graphic descriptions of genitalia and homoeroticism.[21][22] But yes, the section is titled "Unabridged version", so it should discuss the unsexy relationship drama in addition to the text which generates controversy in our "age".

CENSORSHIP HISTORY

Censorship of Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl began with its initial publication in the Netherlands. Anxious to spare the feelings of their protectors and the memory of the other occupants, Otto Frank excised details of the squabbling among the occupants of the annex and sections in which Anne complained about the selfishness or insensitivity of others. Because she viewed the diary as her private writing, Anne frequently expressed unadorned thoughts and concerns and used the diary as a means of venting her frustrations with the situation. Her father removed such passages without changing significantly the overall representations of the others or their relationships. Once Otto Frank sought a publisher, additional censorship was required. The Dutch publisher, Contact, required the removal of certain passages that the editors viewed as “tasteless” or “unseemly.” These included Anne’s references to her and her sister’s menstruation. Anne’s growing sexual curiosity was also deemed unacceptable, despite the naturalness of such curiosity in an adolescent. Therefore, a passage in which she recalls a friend’s developing breasts and muses about wanting to touch them was removed. The publisher also asked that Otto Frank delete all “offensive” remarks made by Anne about her mother. In 1950, the German publishing firm of Lambert Schneider commissioned a German translation, and additional censorship occurred. The Critical Edition notes that material that would have been especially offensive to German readers was removed. One such passage written by Anne related the rule in the annex that everyone was required “to speak softly at all times, in any civilized language, therefore not in German,” which Lambert Schneider changed to “All civilized languages . . . but softly.” The 1952 publication of the diary in England restored most of the excised material. More recent challenges have focused on Anne’s growing sexual awareness. In a January 5, 1944, entry Anne recollects sleeping with a girlfriend and having “a strong desire to kiss her,” which she did. She states further that she was terribly curious about the other girl’s body, “for she had always kept it hidden from me. I asked her whether, as proof of our friendship, we should feel one another’s breasts, but she refused. I go into ecstasies every time I see the naked figure of a woman, such as Venus, for example. . . . If only I had a girl friend!” At the same time, she develops a crush on Peter Van Daan, who shows her “the male organs” of a cat, and with whom she experiences her first ardent kiss on the mouth, questioning if she “should have yielded so soon.” She also observes increased flirting between the dentist and Mrs. Van Daan and notes that “Dussel is beginning to get longings for women.” In 1982, parents in Wise County, Virginia, challenged the use of the book in school and asserted that Anne’s discussion of sexual matters was “inappropriate” and “offensive” and that the criticism of her mother and of the other adults “undermines adult authority.” Others have objected to the discussion of “the mistreatment of the Jewish people,” and one parent of Arab ancestry objected to the portrayal of a Jewish girl. In 1983, four members of the Alabama Textbook Commission wanted to reject the title for use in the schools because it was “a real downer.”[23]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both Her sexuality is irrelevant to her notability. Issues regarding (alleged?) censorship in the book belong in the article about the book, not here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to 2. If we're going to have a section about the expurgated/censored text, we obviously should include reference to the homoerotic entries. More importantly, Jacqueline van Maarsen is conspicuously absent from the article. Jacque was her best friend and deserves mention in the article beyond placement in a template. We have "Personal life" sections for famous people, so it makes sense to discuss her most intimate friends, who seem to have been Peter van Pels, Peter Schiff,[24] and Jacque. The homoeroticism may be the most notable piece of the diary in relationship to Jacque.[25][26] Also per #Quotes from book sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like Question 2 isn't being interpreted consistently.  It sounds like people are voting to say that they don't want characterizations about homosexuality or same-sex attraction (which I don't want either), but we have not been discussing whether to simply include text about the expurgation of her text referencing touching breasts, without characterizing this text.  I would ask that the closer of this RfC carefully distinguish between these discussions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NO! to 1. As for 2, one sentence noting the fact of the censorship in general terms, with no mention of genitalia, breasts, kissing girls or whatever. Something like "Passages in which Frank described her emerging sexual feelings were censored by her father but restored in later editions." with a serious reference preferably academic. Zero^talk 04:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The above seems like a great way of handling it. It gives the reader the important information without being a coatrack for unsourced speculation about a 15-year-old girl's sexual preferences. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What you're seeing as an agenda to coatrack is actually resistance to what I perceive as an agenda to censor. To describe the expurgated text as "candid descriptions of genitalia, menstruation, and her desire to touch herself and her friend Jacqueline" is simply more educational about Frank's life and diary, and about what the censor's have focused on. The world is fascinated with her because she humanizes the experience of the victims of WWII and the Holocaust. Japan even named tampons after her.[27] Your argument should be about WEIGHT, but instead you have been mischaracterizing me as arguing to include "speculation" about her "sexual preferences". (The term "sexual preference" is out of place in this discussion and indicates a lack of nuance.) A 15-year-old girl's sexual thoughts are, as the sources show, important to the world (and other 15-year-old girls!). Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would challenge that "the world" is interested in Anne Franks "sexual thoughts". This isn't about censoring the article, but ensuring it does not start drifting away from the weight of solid reliable sourcing. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we should focus on solid RS, and use them to determine how much weight to give these details of Frank's relationships and the world's reaction to her sexual writings.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me be 100% clear: that is not what I am advocating. My !vote is below with explanation. Personally I do not think the world wants WP to write about the sexual thoughts of a 15-year-old girl - anyone who really wants to do that should just fuck off far, far away from WP. Frank is not notable for that (the information about the censorship of the diaries is relatively recent), and the article should address what is notable about her, given the policies of UNDUE, WEIGHT, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like you are telling 15-year girls they should fuck off from WP, because surely they would want to write about the sexual thoughts of their peers. This does feel like censorship and sexist exclusion. Please be more mindful. The sexual entries have been censored since the publishing of the original diary, as the above source states. Her relationship with her best friend Jacqueline van Maarsen is notable. Van Maarsen has published several books about their friendship.[28] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you intending to twist every comment from people back into something that they have not even come close to suggesting? I have not said anything of the sort, and I think it disgusting that you are deliberately misinterpreting what I have written. You are getting extremely close to trolling with comments like this: it is certainly nothing to do with the question of the RfC. (And don't tell me to be more mindful when there is zero reason: next time there will be a blast of more industrial Anglo-Saxon added your way). No, this is not about censorship, it about balance and dealing with the WEIGHT of the reliable sources. I'm out, if you're going to try and bludgeon and troll everyone who comments for whatever reason you want to force this onto the article, it will be without me. My !vote still stands - and don't bother trying to twist my words again - I don't want to have to drag you to ANI for disruptive and tendentious comments. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW I agree with Kolya: the reliable sources that talk about the censorship almost universally describe what was actually censored. And Wikipedia is not censored, so we really ought to include that information as well. Considerations about whether "the world wants WP to write about the sexual thoughts of a 15-year-old girl" are completely irrelevant here: WP has written about things many people would consider far more offensive than anything we're discussing here, when the sources demand it. Loki (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You really should read what people have written: I am not talking about censoring the article - far from it. I have !voted below to say that one sentence about the censorship of the book should be included, but the details of that censorship should be elsewhere. It's a question of the due weight to give the information in this article, and my !vote covers that. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am frustrated but not surprised that pointing out microaggressions would be misinterpreted as "twisting" words and "trolling". Yes, we need to be careful with how we write about the underaged, but this is not exploitative writing; this is academic, and the pearl-clutchung in this discussion is unprofessional.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Take your frustrations elsewhere: you are twisting people's words in a highly inappropriate manner. I have had to pull you up on it for everything I've posted. There is absolutely no need for it, and it shows the desperation you are sinking to in not being able to address the points calmly and rationally without such underhand linguistic thuggery. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Please take this discussion to my talk page so I can defend myself against your false accusations without further derailing this discussion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to one; per Zero for 2. One academic reference to deal with the censorship, but nothing more or we breach UNDUE, WEIGHT, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to 1, Neutral for 2. No to 1 for obvious reasons, labeling her as LGBT is speculation and has no RS. I'm neutral on 2 and am fine with the vote going either way. If we do include it, I agree with SchroCat and Zero, as per above, the mention needs to be short, focusing on it being removed, and then included in a future version of the diary, and be based on a reliable source. We could just rework the current sentence in the "unabridged" version to flow better and include it there. Anne is not notable for being an LGBT Holocaust victim, so we don't need to include too much of a mention. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No Not without reliable academic sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A range of reliable academic sources are given in this discussion and in the subsequent section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both. Irrelevant, heavily undue, original research and POV pushing.--Darwinek (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both - no RS to be found.--Moxy 🍁 23:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Moxy, I'm confused; I've pasted a large highlighted excerpt above and included more references in my comments (related to 2). Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your talking about her mentioning her curiosity that was censored by her dad that would be fine...but to include just the oneside is not ok...we should mention Peter too.--Moxy 🍁 23:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I would be fine including Peter, and TBH kinda assumed that we would if 2 passed. Loki (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would seem sensible to mention Peter as well. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Summoned by bot) No to 1, clearly not backed up by RS. Neutral on 2; Zero and QueerFilmNerd above appear to have identified a workable solution if it is to be included at all. CThomas³ (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both. Absolutely not. The interpretations today by many LGBT people who think there's an LGBT orientation lurking under everyone's bed is absurd -- and particularly offensive to me as a Lesbian who fought in the trenches of the Gay rights movement, marched for our rights, was physically attacked for being an out Lesbian, and was denied a security clearance and important job because I had the audacity to tell the truth that I was a homosexual. The "woke" hets who think they're doing us favors should find something else to label "queer" and fantasize over. Anne Frank was not bisexual, for F's sake. She was a girl hiding in an attic and living in fear of Nazis. She could not make friends. She could not hang out with other girls her age. She craved freedom and friendship. Her diary was an escape from the shit and horror that surrounded her. Perverse minds invent perverse conclusions.
  Adding to comment: If any sources are to be used regarding allegations about Anne Frank's sexual orientation, they should strictly be academic. Opinion journalism, advocacy journalism, entertainment media, personal essays, op-eds, any and all non-academic sources are not good enough in regards to this subject. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC); edited Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both, per Darwinek. Lectonar (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to bullet (1), Yes to bullet (2). Many of the objections to (2) above do not appear based in policy. If reliable sources are talking about these issues, we need to too. And RS are talking about these issues. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably not to 1, Yes to 2. I'm surprised at how short the currently-titled "Unabridged version" section is in general – I'd merge the last two paragraphs of the "Publication" section into it and rename it. As for her experiences of same-sex attraction in particular, they're discussed by plenty of sources,^[1][2][3][4] and occasionally cited among reasons the book was banned in some schools in the United States.^[5][6][7] I'd probably have a line about the partial restoration of content in 1986 (or else just combine all the new material that has come to light over the years since the dates are less important) and mention it there, along with other things. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to 1. Neutral on 2. 2 should depend on due weight, and I haven't looked into the sources sufficiently to say that.--MattMauler (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to 2 - Not only is there nothing wrong with discussing a subject's sexuality, but given the historical censorship and whitewashing of the topic, it makes for a convincing case that it's all the more important for Wikipedia to include it. I find the vehement condemnations above a bit odd, to say the least, one user calls it "bullshit" and another calls it a conclusion drawn by "perverse minds", when we're literally talking about her own words about herself, which can hardly get any more explicit, hence the reason they have been censored throughout history. As is demonstrated above this topic is well-documented in reliable sources. Personal opinions should be kept out of it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "given the historical censorship and whitewashing of the topic, it makes for a convincing case that it's all the more important for Wikipedia to include it". Isn't that an activist position you're taking? Wouldn't that be the righting of what you perceive as a "great wrong"? Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a literal fact. There are two editions of the diary, one of which is the heavily-censored first edition. The complete and unabridged was only published in the 80s and 90s, and there have been numerous attempts to ban the unabridged one. This is literally common knowledge-level information we're talking about, but if you really need to be convinced, you can literally just google it. God, we're literally talking about factual, easily-verifiable information here. This isn't some twisted culture war conspiracy to reinterpret historical figures. It's astounding that people who have clearly not even looked into the content question are acting like this is some activist crusade. This is censored information. Wikipedia is not censored. Resisting the urge to censor controversial information is not "righting a great wrong", it's our baseline. If you have a problem with that, too bad! Anne Frank talked about being attracted to women in Diary of a Young Girl. I'm sorry if this is shocking, upsetting, breaking news to you, but don't lose your mind at people for simply discussing it. Good grief. What we have is objective content that is easily-verifiable and heavily covered in reliable sources. Yet people are getting all emotional and making false statements, literally jumping to conclusions or lying so that it doesn't get included. If that's not censorship in action, I don't know what it is. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both it is not Wikipedia's place to indulge in speculation regarding the sexuality of a teenage girl who was killed during the Holocaust some 75 years ago. We simply don't know and neither do any of the people who have produced the supposedly reliable sources that are engaging in this inappropriate speculation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh my god, Lep, the source is literally her own words in her own diary. It's not some vague, SJW interpretation about some "secret" writings. They're literally just covering what she said in the diary. I don't know if you know this, but it's out there, you can buy it. Hell, you can find it posted online for free. I won't link to it because of copyright but literally Google it and then Ctrl+F the passage. It ain't a secret. The question is whether to include her own statements about her sexuality, which are easily verifiable and covered by a wide range of reliable sources. If you actually have an argument, that's great, but don't post a statement that makes it painfully obvious that you literally didn't look into this at all. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read her diary. In fact, I remember the passages in question. I also read the above conversation. In fact, I am expressing agreement with points that have been made by several users above. Suffice it to say that what she describes is the normal curiosity experienced by many children of her age. That may be considered salacious fodder on some websites, but it is not something to cover on Wikipedia. You are free to disagree with me, but please don't assume that my opinion is founded on ignorance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Many otherwise straight women question their sexuality as a teenager [and thus we shouldn't rely on the primary source to describe her as bisexual until reliable secondary sources have described her as such]" is a perfectly colorable argument for voting no on 1. But it's not an argument at all for voting no on 2, especially since we have many reliable secondary sources that describe the censorship of the diary, including the passages describing attraction to her female friend. Loki (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says "An unabridged edition of Anne Frank's work was published in 1995.[106] This version included Anne's description of her exploration of her own genitalia and her puzzlement regarding sex and childbirth, a passage that had previously been edited out by Otto Frank" Adding extensive details about the sexual musings of a 15-year-old girl is WP:UNDUE. I also strongly suspect that there is an agenda-driven reason why we are seeing calls to include her words about same-sex attraction but not her words questioning the small size of her vagina compared to a penis or a baby. Or her words about pubic hair. Or her words about prostitution. Or her words about her father's fondness for talking about farting. Or her discovery that urine does not come out of the clitoris. Yes all of those passages exist and all were censored to avoid offending a 1940s audience, but they simply are not notable parts of the diary and they have nothing to do with what makes Anne Frank notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is on same-sex attraction because you initiated a discussion about her same-sex attraction here[29] at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_(PinkNews). If you would like us to discuss the inclusion of her words about prostitution, farting, or anatomy details, please initiate a new discussion here. But the existing text you quoted already references genitalia and her puzzlement regarding how penises and babies could fit through a vagina, and the text about prostitution appears to have been hidden behind glued pages until 2018.[30] We are less focused on subjects like farting which her father and not publishers removed. (Otto did not actually remove the text about genitalia and her puzzlement....) You also have ignored that Anne's feelings about her best friend Jacqueline are about herself and her life in a way that descriptions of bodily functions are not. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated a discussion about her same-sex attraction because that's what has been stuffed into this article and then removed a dozen times. I am asking you why you personally are pushing to add the bit about the same-sex attraction and not the bits about prostitution, farting, or anatomy details. The above makes it sound like "Kolya Butternut wants to include it because Guy Macon objected to previous attempts to include it." That can't be your meaning, but I am at a loss as to how you and the other editors who tried to add it decided what bits to fight over adding and what bits to ignore. The only reason I can think of is a coatrack for the (also added and removed multiple times) claim that Anne Frank was bisexual. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty close; I am fighting to include it because I have seen you fight to exclude it without basis in policy. I did not know the past editing history nor have I ever edited this article. I hate censorship. I'm not fighting to include the other bits because that's not the subject of the discussion which you initiated, and for the reasons I just stated which you continue to ignore. You should focus less on preconceived motivations and more on policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that "to annoy Guy Macon" is not a valid criteria for adding material. It is just a happy side effect. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there it is; you betray a lack of empathy when you focus on yourself and seemingly cannot appreciate other perspectives and ideas. That is to say, this isn't about you, and you (and we all) need to use our imaginations to consider the thoughts of those we're engaging with or else the discussion will be as fruitless as this one began. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both -- per the very good arguments made above. It is highly inappropriate discussing a dead child's sexuality. End of. Cassianto^Talk 07:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  

For the closer, I want to point out WP:NOTCENSORED when you evaluate this particular !vote. Loki (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why this kind of appeal to the closer is necessary or helpful. Write your own !vote rationale or rebuttal explaining your interpretations of policy. Or just leave it be since this issue has already been talked to death. But responding directly to Cassianto's comment under the guise of talking to someone else is just plain passive-aggressive. It's tantamount to saying 'hey closer, ignore this person because of [x]' and such comments have a strong tendency to generate more heat than light. Just address your reply to Cassianto; the closer will still see it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I phrased it that way is that I'm annoyed that so many people are making arguments of "inappropriateness" when that's clearly against policy. Or in other words, yes, it was exactly "closer ignore this person because of [x]", because Wikipedia policy says pretty clearly that the closer should ignore this person because of [x].

I don't see what trying to argue with them directly would help: part of the reason for WP:NOTCENSORED is that decisions of what is appropriate or not are very subjective and so I would essentially be trying to convince Cassianto that their feelings are wrong, which sounds both impossible and like something I wouldn't want to bother with even if it was possible. (Though I'm sorry it came across as passive-aggressive. That honestly wasn't my intention at all.) Loki (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar, given the choice of either adhering to a made up Wikipedia policy, or remaining decent and not speculating about a dead child's sexuality, based on an entry she made whilst in the most desperate and appalling situation imaginable, I'd happily take the latter every time. Take your policy and kindly do one. Best regards. Cassianto^Talk 23:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of avoiding an argument, I'm going to decline to respond, except to say that I think that being this sharply uncivil pretty clearly validates my decision not to argue with you directly. Loki (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar, er...that was a response. And sickeningly, it speaks at volumes. Inferences, sadly, will be drawn. Cassianto^Talk 04:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar, utterly hilarious that you drone on about NOTCENSORED, yet you want to censor me from the final count. Cassianto^Talk 23:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both per many above. If people want to read the diary, well, they can go read the diary. The encyclopedic entry / BLP on Anne Frank need not contain every detail mentioned in the diary. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to 1, Yes to 2. Labelling Anne Frank as an LGBT figure based on extracts from her diary is definitely speculative at best, and so has no place here. However, given the fact that her diaries are so significant in understanding who she was, and that an entire section of the article is devoted to the diaries, it would be improper to not include relevant information about them purely on the basis that it regards sexuality. I think it's been conclusively shown that they were censored on the basis of sexuality (as mentioned in The Diary of a Young Girl#Bans). This is paired with the fact that this particular aspect of her diaries has received coverage in both academic sources (see Talk:Anne Frank#Academic sources on Frank and sexuality) and popular media (see ReconditeRodent's comment above). As a result, while I agree that open speculation around her own personal sexuality should not be included, ignoring this aspect of her diaries that has sparked notable discussion more recently would not do the topic justice. Sparkledriver (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to 1, yes to 2. While some do label Frank as LGBT, it is not widely enough applied. However her writing on sexuality have received significant attention both due to the initial censorship and due to sexuality being an important aspect of a young person. --Astral Leap (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both - She was a child & it's not a part of her notability. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both - This doesn't rise to the level of importance to warrant inclusion. These are mere mentions in a diary. She is not known to have been a practicing homosexual, and it is doubtful, in my mind at least, that had she lived, these mere intimations would have blossomed into relationships with women. Wikipedia isn't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. We are not CENSORING anything in omitting this information. We are refraining from giving WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a minor point. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both due to lack of reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Idealigic, for 2?? Did you see the sources section below, among other sources? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes to 1 if attributed to reliable sources, Yes to 2. Censorship and erasure of LGBTQ sexualities, identities, and culture has gone on forever, and shows no sign of stopping.
  By any modern standard Frank would be labeled bi-curious, or lesbian-leaning. Instead we have to rely on (mostly non-LGBTQ) historians who are largely ignorant or even hostile to homosexuality to interpret Frank’s intentions. The bar is usually set high enough that a historic figure could never be seen as anything approaching not strait.
  A good article wouldn’t whitewash uncomfortable truths, and Wikipedia often excels at distilling hype into comprehensible facts. Just contextualize how modern historians faced with new content are re-evaluating Franks sexuality based on restored content. And absent first-hand knowledge beyond her writings we can probably consider her a Category:LGBT writer or similar. Thousands of LGBTQ students come out despite nearly everything in pop cultures being heteronormative, it’s rarer for that to happen pre-Stonewall (1969), let alone in the 1940s, unheard of really. When all else fails use direct quotes and let her speak for herself. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be discussing this in the absence of the distinction between LGBTQ historians and non-LGBTQ historians. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No to both - per WP:UNDUE, and it's certainly not relevant to what she's notable for. Just because content can be sourced and verified, doesn't mean it's suitable for inclusion. If she was a living teenager, we wouldn't even be having this conversation without an explicit and direct self-identification of her sexuality. Is it any wonder that LGBT youth have the highest rate of suicide attempts, when some people think it's OK to divulge their secret personal feelings and thoughts they intended to remain private. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both, per many reasons given above, including her age, lack of relevance to her notability, and WP:UNDUE. What might get mention in a full-length book, or specialized article dealing with a narrow topic, does not belong in a Wikipedia encyclopedia article summarizing her whole life. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both entirely irrelevant to the subject and article ... good grief ... and block anyone who votes yes to discuss children's irrelevant sexuality! Anyone that messed up shouldn't be here! Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No to both because this young adolescent girl never identified herself as lesbian, bi-sexual or bi-curious, so it is inappropriate and WP:UNDUE for us to insinuate her sexuality based on her private thoughts. Her private sexual thoughts should not be promoted on Wikipedia to synthesise a conclusion in the minds of our readers to suit an WP:AGENDA and WP:ACTIVISM.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context

I thought it would be good to visualise the topic of the RfC in context:

Since the 1980s and 90s, several sections of Anne’s diaries which were initially edited out have been revealed and included in new editions.^[1][2] These contain passages relating to her sexuality, experiences of same-sex attraction, exploration of her genitalia, and her thoughts on menstruation.^[1][3][4] Following the conclusion of an ownership dispute in 2001, new editions have also incorporated pages removed by Otto Frank prior to publication which contain critical remarks about her parents' strained marriage and discuss her difficult relationship with her mother.^[5][6] Two additional pages which Anne had pasted over with brown paper were deciphered in 2018, and contained an attempt to explain sex education plus a handful of “dirty” jokes.^[4][7]

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we'd had this and the edit you made based on it before the RfC started, since it makes it clear that the only difference between the two versions is the phrase "experiences of same-sex attraction" in a paragraph about the censorship. Loki (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, people have interpreted the topic of the RfC in very different ways. It might be worthwhile to put forward a more specific and contextualised proposal, especially now that there's been much more discussion of sources. I'd probably give everyone a chance to recover first and see how important it seems in a month or so. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike her exploration of her genitalia, and her thoughts on menstruation, there is zero evidence of "experiences of same-sex attraction" in any reliable source. The Phenomenon of Anne Frank by David Barnouw says "There is one clear example of intervention by the publisher. It concerns a passage in which Anne describes how in the past she spent the night with her girlfriend Jacque and was curious about her body". Curiosity about the female body (something every 15-year-old girl experiences) does not equal same-sex attraction. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the conversation around point 2 is not surrounding Frank herself; rather, it's about her diaries. Whether or not we can discern if she was LGBT or not herself is mostly irrelevant when considering point 2. It's indisputable that, whether or not she was or would have turned out to be LGBT, in the censorship of her diaries certain sections were treated as such. The diaries were censored, due to the perception that they contained homoerotic material. Whether or not these experiences are typical or not really does not mean much, because they were treated as abnormal by editors.

For example, see Waaldijk (1993, doi:10.1016/0277-5395(93)90022-2, p331) who points out that "An important deletion in the Dutch Version C concerns the entry describing Anne’s curiosity about the body of her best friend Jacqueline: I asked Jacque whether as a proof of our friendship we might feel one another’s breasts. Jacque refused. I also had a terrible desire to kiss Jacque and that I did. I go into extasies every time I see the naked figure of a woman, such as Venus in the Springer History of Art, for example. It strikes me sometimes as so wonderful and exquisite that I have difficulty not letting the tears roll down my cheeks. If only I had a girlfriend!"

Waaldijk paints it as 'curiosity about the body of her best friend', as you have done. Nevertheless, it was excluded from publication in some editions for the reason that it was perceived to have been homoerotic. I understand why a claim that she was bisexual would be controversial, but I can't see the controversy in pointing out that the diaries have been censored on the basis of homoerotic content. It is neither improper nor false to make a claim about the way in which the diaries have been treated, particularly in an article about someone whose historical notability comes from her diaries. Sparkledriver (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform the above RfC or future possible edits, here are some more academic references pertinent to these issues in a broad sense and their excision before publication. Waaldijk (1993, doi:10.1016/0277-5395(93)90022-2) discusses Frank's words relating to sexuality and being a woman, and how they've been edited. Kuitert (2010, doi:10.1163/001495210X12561886980275) discusses who did the censoring of the original published version of the diary. I mentioned Puchner & Klein (2011, doi:10.1080/10665684.2011.563182) above, who discuss the use of Frank's diary in education and discuss how to talk about sexuality. Bankirer (2018, doi:10.26262/gramma.v25i0.6589) discusses Frank's writings on sexual feelings at length. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the doi:10.26262/gramma.v25i0.6589 source, and this is how the author describes the subject: "exploring her desires as well as her voice as a woman." Woman? Anne Frank was 15 years old when she was exterminated. A 13, 14, 15-year-old female is not a woman. And a 15-year-old girl in her era cannot be compared with a 15-year-old in today's sex-saturated world. It appears that even these "academic" sources need to be taken with a grain of salt. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, adding extensive details about the sexual musings of a 15-year-old girl is WP:UNDUE. I also strongly suspect that there is an agenda-driven reason why we first saw multiple attempts to label her as bisexual, and when that didn't fly we then saw multiple attempts include her words about same-sex attraction.

I think it is worth noting that there have been multiple attempts include her words about same-sex attraction, but zero attempts to include her words questioning the small size of her vagina compared to a penis or a baby. Or her words about pubic hair. Or her words about prostitution. Or her words about her father's fondness for talking about farting. Or her discovery that urine does not come out of the clitoris. Yes all of those passages exist and all were censored to avoid offending a 1940s audience, but they simply are not notable parts of the diary and they have nothing to do with what makes Anne Frank notable.

I suspect that some editors would really like to see a huge section about how Anne Frank is a gay icon with a small (oh, by the way, she was also murdered by the Nazis) note at the bottom. I exaggerate, but not much. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided counterarguments to your identical comment above which you have completely ignored.  This seems to show a motivation to censor regardless of policy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, to you "completely ignored" means "responded to at length". That was the place where you explained why you personally are focusing on same-sex attraction -- because of me. Who knew I had such power over your behavior? It still doesn't explain the dozens of attempts by other editors though. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)::::[reply]

Sigh, we are all arguing about same-sex attraction because of you; you initiated the present discussion; I have been trying to point out the irony that you do not see why everyone is focusing on this when you yourself initiated this topic. You're both making the conversation revolve around you and you don't see why that is. Again, you have not responded to my arguments: the existing text you quoted already references genitalia and her puzzlement regarding how penises and babies could fit through a vagina, and the text about prostitution appears to have been hidden behind glued pages until 2018.[31] We are less focused on subjects like farting which her father and not publishers removed. (Otto did not actually remove the text about genitalia and her puzzlement....) You also have ignored that Anne's feelings about her best friend Jacqueline are about herself and her life in a way that descriptions of bodily functions are not. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it is worth noting that there have been multiple attempts include her words about same-sex attraction." And not just about same-sex attraction, but that it is bisexual attraction. Anyone with any education about sexual orientation knows that fantasizing about both sexes, or being involved with both, is a step in the coming out process for many (most, imo) homosexuals. So why tag her as being "bisexual" when she could have been a homosexual girl discovering her nature? I personally don't believe she was either one, but the lesbophobia by 'queer archeologists' and grave diggers is ridiculously blatant. B.s. is as b.s. does. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Pyxis Solitary above, Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not the opinions of editors. If you are elevating your opinions above sources, that's WP:OR and a mistake. Likewise, Guy Macon, what particular issues should be covered is again determined by what reliable sources say, not by the opinions of editors. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You got it partially right (Wikipedia is not based on the opinions of editors), but your claim that "Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say" oversimplifies our actual policies. We don't automatically include anything that is in a reliable source. As it says in WP:WEIGHT:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Are these theories about Anne Frank's sexual orientation discussed in mainstream biographies of Anne Frank or in standard reference works covering the holocaust? No.

• Can you name prominent adherents of these theories about Anne Frank's sexual orientation? No.

Are these theories about Anne Frank's sexual orientation held by an extremely small minority? yes,

The mainstream view supported by multiple reliable scientific sources on the topic of sexuality and adolescence is that the feelings Anne Frank reported are common among 15-year-old girls. The view that they prove that she was heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual is an extreme WP:FRINGE viewpoint, not supported by any reliable sources. The attempt to include the exact words from a primary source is a transparent attempt to coat-rack in material that supports the above Fringe POV despite no reliable secondary source supporting it. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Guy Macon. I am glad that we are in agreement that we should follow what reliable sources say rather than the opinions of editors.

I support what is clearly the consensus view in the RfC above that we should not be labelling Frank as bisexual or homosexual. Perhaps we can move beyond that discussion? I think we nearly all agree with you on that. The question where we are yet to resolve a consensus is whether the article should say something — and if so, what — about Frank's sexuality and sexual feelings, how they were removed from the published diary, and how the text has been subsequently interpreted. Do significant reliable sources discuss these issues? Yes.

You ask Are these theories about Anne Frank's sexual orientation discussed in mainstream biographies of Anne Frank or in standard reference works covering the holocaust? Examples are given below of mainstream biographies discussing these issues. I am very happy to see text based on what they say. That said, I see no reason in policy that restricts us to mainstream biographies of Anne Frank or [...] standard reference works covering the holocaust. Good, reliable sources of other sorts — about the history of sexuality, about how Frank is read, or used in education, etc. — also count as RS. Myself and others have given several examples in books and academic journals, in addition to the earlier examples in newspapers and news websites. Bondegezou (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misusing policy. Although it is true that we may only include material covered by reliable sources, the converse is not true. Just because a book-length biography includes a few paragraphs on something doesn't mean that it is appropriate for a brief encyclopedia article. The fact is that Frank's private thoughts on sexuality are neither notable in themselves nor more than an infinitesimal part of the reason Frank herself is notable. Only the censorship of the diary is notable, and that rather marginally. Zero^talk 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the article shouldn't cover everything ever mentioned by an RS. We do select based on the amount of coverage. So, the question is what do sources say, and how many? You characterise the situation as Just because a book-length biography includes a few paragraphs on something. However, over a dozen citations have been provided in the discussion so far: from a full-length article in Haaretz to paragraphs in a number of biographies to various academic papers. Clearly we're talking about more than a few paragraphs in one biography.

I'm not saying we should have a huge section on this, but it seems to me that we should have more than is in the current article. I was thinking a few sentences, maybe half a paragraph. That, it seems to me, would reflect the coverage we see in sources. I feel it would benefit the journey towards a consensus, whatever we finally decide, if editors would engage with the sources presented. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her entire two years in the Achterhuis are described in three short paragraphs; now we should add "a few sentences" on this? Please review WP:UNDUE. `Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, almost certainly yes. Second of all, as it currently stands 2 would involve adding literally a single clause consisting of only 5 words. Above, ReconditeRodent posted an example paragraph that mentions her "experiences of same-sex attraction" to add to the article. Separately, they also added the paragraph to the article, minus the single clause "experiences of same-sex attraction". Now, it seems to me that if that paragraph is unobjectionable without the clause, as it seems to have been since it's been in the article a week now, and if the clause is equally well attested in reliable sources as the rest of the paragraph, as it certainly is, there cannot be a WP:UNDUE issue. Rather this an issue of WP:NOTCENSORED: editors insist on treating perfectly parallel information differently based on whether it pertains to homosexuality or not. Loki (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The removed claim is not found in any reliable source. Unlike her exploration of her genitalia, and her thoughts on menstruation, there is zero evidence supporting a claim of "experiences of same-sex attraction" in any reliable source. The Phenomenon of Anne Frank by David Barnouw says "There is one clear example of intervention by the publisher. It concerns a passage in which Anne describes how in the past she spent the night with her girlfriend Jacque and was curious about her body". Curiosity about the female body (something every 15-year-old girl experiences) does not equal same-sex attraction. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, you may be suggesting "only 5 words", but Bondegezou is clearly suggesting something much more lengthy. And even if it's "only 5 words", look at it this way: dozens of full-length books have been written about Anne Frank and her diary, and thousands more articles. How many words do you think have been written about her? Certainly tens of millions. Perhaps hundreds of millions? Now what percent of those have been devoted to her "experiences of same-sex attraction"? 0.001%? 0.0001%? All that has been found below are a few sentences on her life/writings that might be relevant to this. This article is around 8000 words; 0.001% of that is 0 words. Sometimes WP:UNDUE means that we write 0 words in an article about a topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to say "same-sex attraction"; and we shouldn't use characterizations like "curious" when we can objectively describe what the text says. As quoted below, Anne Frank: Reflections on Her Life and Legacy says, "An important deletion in the Dutch version c concerns the entry describing Anne's curiosity about the body of her best friend Jacqueline: [diary excerpt]. In the Dutch version, the references to feeling her friend's breasts and the kiss are left out, but both appear in the English version."  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from book sources

"[T]he publishers suggested that references to sex, menstruation, and two girls touching each other's breasts be deleted because they lacked the proper degree of 'propriety' for a Dutch audience." Anne Frank's The Diary of Anne Frank [32]

"The English version c, the Diary of a Young Girl, contained more open discussion of sexuality than the Dutch version. An important deletion in the Dutch version c concerns the entry describing Anne's curiosity about the body of her best friend Jacqueline: [diary excerpt]. In the Dutch version, the references to feeling her friend's breasts and the kiss are left out, but both appear in the English version." Anne Frank: Reflections on Her Life and Legacy [33]

"There is one clear example of intervention by the publisher.  It concerns a passage in which Anne describes how in the past she spent the night with her girlfriend Jacque and was curious about her body:  [diary excerpt]. Anne didn't copy this in her second version, and it's not in the 1947 printed version.  Remarkably, this deleted section did appear in the 1950 translation, thanks to Otto Frank. He clearly disagreed with these and other deletions and sent them to the English publisher and the translator.  According to his enclosed letter, these were passages 'which were not printed in the Dutch edition  because they were either too long or were likely to offend Dutch Puritan or Catholic susceptibilities [...] and wonder if you would be so good as to translate them for us.' The English translation is therefore slightly more extensive than the original Dutch publication." The Phenomenon of Anne Frank by David Barnouw [34] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these additions, Kolya Butternut. It seems clear that this is something RS choose to talk about, ergo the article should reflect that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources chose to talk about the censorship, which we already have a section on: Anne Frank#Censored sections. This creepy fascination with every tiny detail of the exact things that one particular 15-year-old girl was curious about is WP:UNDUE. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current section does not include text referencing the expurgated homoerotic text, that is why the above RfC asks: "2. Should we include mention of Anne’s exploration of her sexuality with her friend which was removed and later re-added in a later edition?". Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I will repeat, her relationship with her best friend Jacqueline is not a tiny detail. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please make up you mind. Do you want the article to contain "the expurgated homoerotic text... Anne’s exploration of her sexuality with her friend" or do you want the article to contain material about "her relationship with her best friend Jacqueline"? I doubt that anyone would object to the latter as long as it wasn't used as a coatrack for including what you call "the expurgated homoerotic text" and your sources call "Anne's curiosity about the body of her best friend". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both? We haven't really discussed including more information about her relationships. I'm not sure what you're trying to say by singling out the word "curiosity" when used in the context of homoerotic behavior. Anne desired to touch her friend's breasts but instead only kissed her; that is by definition homoerotic; I don't believe I've made claims about her sexual orientation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The normal behavior found in pretty much every 15-year-old girl is not "by definition homoerotic". This is one of those cases where a Wikipedia editor uses the phrase "by definition,..." as a stand in for "according to my original research,...". I remember a while back (does anybody remember what talk page this was on?) we had a Wikipedia editor start with an account of a 10-year-old boy kissing his 12-year-old sister because they were curious about what the mouth-to-mouth kissing they saw in the movies was like, and then using that same "by definition" argument to try to claim that the two had incestuous feelings toward one another. Same error. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my intended meaning of the word homoerotic is unclear. From Homoeroticism:

Despite an ever-changing and evolving set of modern classifications, members of the same sex often formed intimate associations (many of which were erotic as well as emotional) on their own terms, most notably in the "romantic friendships" documented in the letters and papers of 18th- and 19th- century men and women (see Rictor Norton, ed., My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries, Gay Sunshine Press, 1998). These romantic friendships, which may or may not have included genital sex, were characterized by passionate emotional attachments and what modern thinkers would consider homoerotic overtones.

I am using the word to mean passion towards the same sex or behavior that is characteristic of homosexuality without necessarily being sexual. For instance, two heterosexual male friends jokingly humping each other is homoerotic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a child's natural curiosity about the human body is not. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're focusing on semantics at the expense of what I'm trying to communicate. Forget characterizations; I'm talking about the diary entry where she talks about wanting to touch breasts, which was expurgated. But this is not "curiosity": "I go into ecstasies every time I see the naked figure of a woman, such as Venus". Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a reliable secondary source that specifically says that Anne Frank had a same-sex attraction. A primary source saying that she goes into ecstasies viewing a marble statue plus your WP:SYNTH isn't good enough. Then, once you have established that it passes WP:V (which you have so far failed to do), then you can address the multiple editors who have repeatedly told you that it fails WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're blatantly creating a strawman. I have clarified over and over again that I am not claiming she had a same-sex attraction. I stated that we should avoid characterizing her words, and I am also disagreeing with your preferred characterization of "curiosity", which does not summarize the entire diary entry. Editors haven't repeatedly told me about WEIGHT; I have barely engaged in that discussion because I am having to correct your misrepresentations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to bypass discussion by editing The Diary of a Young Girl: [35][36]

Please put The Diary of a Young Girl on your watchlist it it isn't already. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]