Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anne Frank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Anne Frank

Self nomination. This has been on Peer Review for several weeks, and has been reworked in line with some of the comments made about it there, and also on the Talk:Anne Frank page. I think it's now ready for consideration. Rossrs 06:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. 119 07:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is a terrific piece of research and writing. One point: I'd like to see a brief explanation as to why the men in 1959 and later in 1980 were charged for saying the diary was a fake, because many readers may not know the background, and perhaps a link to an article about the 1980 trial. Also, the link to the article examining the authenticity issue (An article on the diary's authenticity by Theresien da Silva of the Anne Frank House) seems to be broken. SlimVirgin 08:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
thanks. I'll work on those points. Rossrs 08:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
have fixed the link. Took information from that article to expand on the point about the legal cases, and therefore moved the link from "external links" to "references". The article discusses various cases including the 1980 case, in reasonable detail, so by coincidence this addresses your suggestion for a link :-) Broke this section into two subsections.Rossrs 09:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very comprehensive, but I wished the part that is mentioned about her death is more distinguish from the main body of the text. Squash 11:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thanks. I don't think the death section needs to be highlighted, any more than the death sections of any other biography where the subject is dead. In fact it's given more mention I suppose than most people who just die a natural death. I don't know what else I could add. Rossrs 18:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I came across that article a few days ago, and it struck me as being very good. I was convinced it was already featured. Phils 13:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support but I have a question. This article is categorized as "Dutch writers" but according to informations from Japanese article, Anne Frank became a Stateless person after leaving Germany. Also according to it, the judicial branch of Netherland ruled on October 4, 2004 that it could not give the nationality posthumously. So by her being born in Germany, shouldn't the article be also categorized as "German writers"? Revth 17:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd be uncomfortable classing her as a German writer, because she categorized herself as Dutch, rejected the notion that she was German, refused to speak German except when she had to, and was murdered by Germans who didn't think she was German. If anything she could also go into Jewish writers (there is no category of that name at the moment) but I think she should stayed Dutch writers. Rossrs 18:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. Revth 04:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. good coverage, but who are these "Aryan citizens" you mention? pamri 17:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
The source information I worked with uses the term "Aryan" frequently. I'm sure you realize the intention, as you haven't asked me who the Catholics or Protestants were, and they are also mentioned in the same sentence without me providing their names or addresses. I would like to leave the word Aryan stay as it is, and it's not because I mean it to be offensive. I understand it has racist connotations, and that is the whole point. I would hope anyone reading it who does not know what the word means would click on it to see it's meaning, and most importantly to see what the word meant during Anne Frank's lifetime. I think it's important to remember that she died, not just because she was Jewish but because she was not Aryan. The Nazi's yardstick, same reason the Roma and the Sinta were killed, they weren't Aryan. I think mentioning it early is ok too, just shows that the average Aryan didn't mind having Anne Frank in their neighborhood. Then again, you know if it really bothers you, you're at liberty to change it yourself, as is anybody. It's just that I think the word is more meaningful and specific than any alternative I can think of. Thanks for mentioning it and I'm glad you liked it apart from that. Rossrs 18:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: user has done extensive revisions from feedback from peer review. Excellent article! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Superb. Ambi 09:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, very well done. Dsmdgold 15:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - good article Brookie 16:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delightful article, but Oppose temporarily, fix the following: see more specific objection below.
    • Consistency in naming. "Anne" turns into "Frank" and back. Stick with one throughout, even the full name every time if you must, and refer to other members of the family accordingly.
    +sj + 05:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
have fixed. the consistency I opted for was first name only when discussing her in her family setting, or on a "personal" level, and full name when referring to her formally. there are no examples of anyone being referred to as just "Frank" now. Rossrs 09:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Better now.
      • Odd... I first looked at the page a day earlier, and though I had saved a different version of comments (including the comment below); sorry to those whose comments got overwritten! +sj +
    • Distinction b/t Anne Frank's biography and discussion of the book. Personally I would prefer to see a proper article at Diary of a Young Girl (currently a redir to Anne Frank), with sections just on the book and its analysis/critics moved out of the biography. But it would also be fine to have everything about the book in a separate top-level section (then analysis, questions of validation/verification, different editions... would all be subsections of that section). Right now #Legacy is sandwiched between two sections about the book. +sj + 09:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think we're viewing this article from completely different perspectives, so here is mine. In all the dozens upon dozens of websites I looked at researching this article, I was struck by the fact that the compete story is not told on one single page anywhere. (If it exists I couldn't find it). Everything seems hone in on one aspect, often in excessive detail, but to get the whole picture requires quite a bit of jumping about, and sifting through a lot of trivia. So the thing that pleases me most about this article is that it is very different to what else is available, because it covers all the (what I think are) relevant points in one place, and I think in enough detail to satisfy anyone wanting a good overview, without delving into details that cater more to obsessed fans, or triviaholics. To branch out into separate articles would undo this and create either 1. separate, small, non noteworthy articles, or 2. separate articles that eventually grow to include all the trivia and superfluous detail that I tried to weed out. Just so you know where I'm coming from, this is why I consciously avoided creating a page for the diary itself.
I can see "Legacy" was sandwiched. I've followed your second suggestion and rearranged the text somewhat to keep the discussion of the diary together, and have reworked the headings. The article now ends on a negative note - ie criticism of Anne Frank Fonds, but I couldn't see another way of doing it. Is this basically the format you were suggesting? Rossrs 13:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
more editing, disregard my comment about ending on a negative note. The previous edit was jarring but has been fixed. Rossrs 13:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that bit looks great now. +sj + 03:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Better, and much better text overall, but still ObjectSupport; better division. I can't think of a case in which a biography of the author should be the only article we have on a major book or work, and this isn't the exception to the rule.
You've done a fine job of creating a rounded picture; it reads well. But the redirect is confusing -- this is /not/ an article about the diary itself. Please create a separate page for the book that includes (or leaves room for) publishing details which would be inappropriate in a concise biography: languages into which it was published, popularity in various countries, various editions and publishers and dates of publication. There is a bit of unnecessary detail in the bio regarding the diary -- the bits about the '86 edition and about Suijk, for instance -- which have little or nothing to do with Frank or her story. Then you can link from the book to the bio for more complete context. +sj + 03:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Did not see your comment at Talk:Anne Frank until now. OK, the way you've suggested it there makes good sense. Have made a very rushed start on a stub for the diary as a published work (The Diary of a Young Girl). It's not even close to being adequate and even as a stub it's rather poor, but it's a beginning, and is sure to grow into something worthwhile. I don't have time to do more that the basics with it at the moment but will continue to revisit it. thanks Rossrs 11:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
@ +sj: I too agree with the notion of creating a separate article about the Diary, but I have to respectfully disagree with your reasoning. The way I see it, the Anne Frank article is not merely a biography, but also a treatise of Anne Frank as a symbol, an icon, or a franchise, if you will. If it was just a biography, the article would end with her death in 1945, wouldn't it? But that would not tell the whole story of Anne Frank. The diary she wrote is the very reason that sets her apart from many of the other Holocaust victims, and which made her the potent symbol she is today. I therefore don't think that the person and the book need to be separated. Also, if the information about the diary should move to another article, would the same not also apply to the text about the Anne Frank Foundation, the Fonds and the work Otto Frank did after the war? Strictly speaking, all that isn't relevant to the life of Anne Frank either. Finally, "should not contain information that could be moved to an as-yet non-existing article" isn't really a featured article criterium. I think it would be helpful if you could suggest which things should be changed in this article, and treat the creation of the new one about the diary as a separate issue. Just my 0.02, of course. --Plek 12:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"the bits about the '86 edition and about Suijk, for instance" are bits that do not fit in this article. There are other small bits that have nothing to do with Anne Frank, as person, symbol, or icon, which perhaps had not been written at all since they did not belong in Anne Frank. I was not trying to conflate the two issues, only pointing out that the desire to combine all information about the Diary into this article, made it less brilliant and effective. +sj + 19:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Plek. Once again you have been able to succinctly put into words what I would like to say. My thought has been that an article about the diary could be written, and should be written, but not that it should be mandatory before this article could be considered as complete, and I appreciate that you have put forward that viewpoint. I would hope that The Diary of a Young Girl will gradually develop over time, but not at the expense of Anne Frank which should remain the primary source of information. Rossrs 12:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Jeronimo 21:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if it is of ongoing value to mention this, or whether it is of transitory interest? Also to mention this, where should it go? It doesn't fit into any of the existing sections, and to create a new section for this point doesn't seem to me to be the best solution. If you can suggest a way of fitting this into the existing framework, or give me some idea about how you would like this included, I will be happy to oblige. Rossrs 10:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For those not in the know: There is nothing "official" about the Grootste Nederlander "election". It was a TV show, designed to draw ratings, not some kind of formal recognition by the government. The "winner" was decided by popular vote, so it isn't too surprising that populist, assassinated politician Pim Fortuyn won. Fortuyn is quite popular amongst part of the Dutch population, but whether that qualifies to name someone the "greatest" Dutchman of all time is anyone's guess, of course. The debate about Anne Frank's naturalisation was initiated by officials of the broadcaster that aired the program. In the end the naturalisation was deemed impossible because Dutch law only allows it for people that are alive. I think the episode tells us more about entertainment and bureacracy than that it adds anything significant about Anne Frank herself. --Plek 07:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Although the section about the book is very well done, I would like to know a bit more about the differences between version A and version B, since that is a chance to learn how Anne Frank worked as a writer.
  • While I share your interest in the literary aspects of the diary, I don't really see how a few lines in this article could do that question justice. The Critical Edition, which examines the differences you're mentioning, is itself a work of 700+ pages. I'd like to propose to defer this subject, until an article is written about the diary itself (e.g. Diary of a Young Girl, as proposed above). This would allow for more space (not to mention the extensive research and fact-finding that would be required) to document the work. --Plek 06:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, and echo Plek's request to reconsider this. I'd rather see a second good article about the diary and the writing, than see it addressed in too little detail in the biographical article. Rossrs 10:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • the achterhuis was stormed by the Grüne Polizei following a tip-off from an informer who was never identified - it should be mentioned that historian Carol Ann Lee (the author of the 2000 Anne Frank biography mentioned in the references) named a Dutch anti-semite called Tonny Ahlers as the informer and presented considerable evidence, see this Guardian article, for example. here it is said that the NIOD set up an inquiry in 2002 to investigate this and another theory, it would be good to describe its outcome (which I don't know).
  • Who betrayed Anne Frank? A study by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation is listed in the "External links" section. The Ahlers hypothesis (amongst others) is discussed in that report. Added: I've moved the report to the "References" section and added an in-line link in the text. --Plek 16:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I had overlooked that link indeed. It seems that the Ahlers theory has flaws and the NIOD is quite critical of it. Still, I think the article should mention the names of the three main suspects and briefly describe the current state of the debate (including NIOD's statement: The conclusion of our inquiry is that we do not consider any of the three suspects to be a likely candidate for the role of betrayer), since many people will come here to look for this kind of information. regards, High on a tree 16:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The people coming here to find this information will be able to follow the link. I don't see the point of listing people who have been ruled out. If the person is ever identified, then yes definately give that subject a couple of detailed paragraphs. Rossrs 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
regards, High on a tree 15:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is very interesting I agree, and I'm glad you pointed it out because I knew nothing about it. Using the criterion of "does it add to our knowledge and understanding of the subject?", my opinion is that it doesn't meet that criterion. I used the same criterion to eliminate several things from previous edits that personally interested me a great deal, and I also found various things while researching that I wanted to add, but knew I couldn't for the same reason. Rossrs 10:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps something like a disambig at the top for the asteroid see 55.... Anyway, I would like to see mention of the asteroid. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:32, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
Maybe a quick few links in the "see also" section? Support, by the way. JuntungWu 06:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, well I still think it should not be there and I've explained my reasoning, but 3 people think it should be added, so I'm clearly outvoted. Have added it to the "Related topics" section. Rossrs 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Nichalp 18:44, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Anne_Frank_61c5.html"