Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2020 April 4

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 4

Anne Frank's sexuality

Hi guys,

Isn't it weird to mention Anne Frank's sexuality in the intro of her article? It mentions that she kissed a girl, a boy and she wanted to touch the girl's breast. I'm far from being conservative about sex but that seems just wrong to mention it, especially in the intro (like it would be so important to know). What are your thoughts? Ericdec85 (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sourced to Pink News and some WP:OR (quoting from her diary). I `am removing it on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Good move. But wait, there's more! At the end of the Early life section, and the entire Definitive edition sub-section. It was all added less than five days ago by Re1ny.Dev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who registered only a fortnight ago. It's quite repetitive. I think I shall remove the rest. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems that Re1ny.Dev has been quite busy. See [1] and [2] --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it "seem just wrong" eg to mention she was Jewish? She was bi, she was Jewish, and the nazis were not a fan of either. Don't participate in bisexual erasure. It's relevant and it should stay, not in the first graf, but in the "personal life" section or whatever. Temerarius (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

She was hiding because she was Jewish and everybody knew she was. She was not hiding because she was bisexual (nobody knew about it). So your comment makes absolutely no sense. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Our standard for inclusion is not "what seems right" or "what seems wrong". Our standard is found at WP:WEIGHT. which clearly states

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

Anne Frank being Jewish is covered extensively in multiple published reliable sources so we include it. Anne Frank's sexuality is only covered in one advocacy publication, so we do not include it because it fails WP:WEIGHT.

As for the extensive reliance on the text of (one version of) her diary, Per WP:REPUTABLE,

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." (emphasis added). Also see WP:OR.

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems like the kind of thing that is probably documented in RS somewhere. Web search gets plenty of hits on the topic. E.g. [3] looks ok to me as a source. Frank was a teenager though, unlikely to have been "out" enough for the Nazis to notice. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

And as for being bi, a normal teenage curiosity about and dabbling in sexual matters is no basis on which to form conclusions about their sexual orientation. Otherwise, pretty much the entire world would be classified as gay. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Every reliable source says that Anne Frank was murdered by the Nazis for being a Jew, not for being a homosexual. While there were indeed many gays murdered during the Holocaust -- see Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany -- Anne Frank was not one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Friends, Annie was bi. If her own diaries are not an authoritative source, I don't know what would be. It would be unfair to her memory to remove this pertinent info from her bio. And it would be unfair to the endeavor of LGBT history. Temerarius (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless someone's sexuality has a significant impact on their life, or is (at least part of) the reason we have an article on them, there is no reason to mention it. We don't mention the heterosexuality of the majority of the people we write about. As for "the endeavor of LGBT history", Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, Anne Frank is only bisexual if she said that she is bisexual. If her diaries don't say that, you can't say that. If you are basing your belief as such based on actions or thoughts she recorded in her diaries, then what you are saying is "I believe that Anne Frank was bisexual based on my interpretation of her actions based on my understanding of what a bisexual person is" and that is way-beyond-the-pale personal editorializing and NOT what Wikipedia is about. So no, her diaries do not report that she was bisexual, unless that text is quite blatantly in her diary. And it isn't. --Jayron32 18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Friend, it is quite blatantly in her diary. She said she liked a boy and she said she liked a girl. That's bi. And HiLo, Wikipedia is interested in history. LGBT history is real history. It's not 'righting great wrongs,' it's just regular history. Temerarius (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mate, she was aged 15 (!!) when she died. Her diaries were written some considerable time before that. It is absolutely normal for people of that age to, as I said above, exhibit curiosity about sexual matters, and it is absolutely normal for them to do things with, and express feelings about, members of the same sex. The vast majority of these people grow up to be exclusively heterosexual, and consider that this stuff they did in their teenage years to be experimentation, NOT ex cathedra statements about or evidence of their sexual orientation. And yes, some of them do grow up to be gay, or bisexual. But, as with the heterosexual adults, whatever happened in their teenage years is mostly irrelevant to their adult sexuality. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that's you saying that means she is bisexual. Did she ever say that she identified as bisexual? --Jayron32 01:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To give that bit of trivia proportionate weight, the article would need to reproduce the entire diary, and that's not going to happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that y'all are hitching your horse to the wrong-side-of-history post, but I know I won't win this one so I'll call it quits here. Temerarius (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You're seeing it through a particular lens, and it doesn't fit in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Garuda Indonesia origins

I believe I read somewhere that Garuda Indonesia's first few aircraft were stolen from KLM during the liberation war against the Netherlands, but no such information is to be found in the Garuda Indonesia article. Is this claim made-up, or is there evidence to back it? Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 03:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to doubt the information in the Garuda Indonesia article and other relevant articles. Especially since it's fairly unlikely something as significant as this will just be largely forgotten about. I wonder if you are getting confused by KNILM, which as our articles say, is sort of a predecessor to Garuda. According to our article, 1942 KNILM Douglas DC-3 shootdown and [4], some KLM aircraft were transferred to KNILM during the early days of WW2 in then Dutch East Indies.

The precise conditions of this transfer to KNILM is somewhat unclear to me from a quick read of those sources, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were questions over whether it was handled properly. But I think all these aircraft were either destroyed or sold to someone else during WW2. Precisely who ended up with the money is unclear, it may be KNILM. It seems a moot point, since KNILM was dissolved and their assets transferred to KLM Interinsulair Bedrijf which unlike KNILM, was a subsidiary of KLM.

Of course KLM Interinsulair Bedrijf was nationalised in Indonesia anyway becoming Garuda. However Netherlands seems to have agreed with this even though I suspect they weren't given much choice [5] [6]. And remember the earlier point, KLM Interinsulair Bedrijf being a subsidiary of KLM taking over from KNILM was itself a choice of the Dutch government [7], even if I think KLM assets were moved to their subsidiary afterwards.

(P.S. There may be some confusion over the relevance of "Seulawah", the first aircraft purchased with the help of money from Acehese business people [8]. That's one aspect our articles seem to be a bit confused on. I think that was the first aircraft actually purchased by Garuda, the others either being leased or coming from KLM Interinsulair Bedrijf.)

Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at KLM#Early years, it seems that the airline was a private company at the time so some may dispute Dutch government agreeing to hand over KLM Interinsulair Bedrijf without KLM agreeing and being adequately compensated which I'm not sure happened. So it could also be this is where your confusion came from although I strongly suspect Dutch law allowed it, and Indonesian law even more so. And getting back to the earlier point, the formation of KLM Interinsulair Bedrijf in part from KNILM seems to have heavily involved the Dutch government anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Nil Einne! Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Strauss Howe theory

Exactly when it is said that the media and advertising use this theory. What does it mean by media and advertising? Are they saying generations vary from country to country and its hard to generalise but this theory generalises all named generations like gen z millennials etc? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation#List_of_named_generations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.1.93 (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Who says that? It is well known that Steve Bannon is obsessed with Strauss–Howe generational theory, but serious media companies and advertising agencies are unlikely to risk their success on the basis of what is widely seen as pseudoscience.  --Lambiam 07:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Unlikely to risk their success", lol, they spend tons of money on far stupider things. Look at the whole industry of online advertising, for example. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It may seem stupid to you, but it is not widely seen as pseudoscience. Large companies spend a lot of effort in finding out what "works" in targeting demographic segments by performing experiments to see which approaches and variations are the most effective; they use sophisticated statistical methods and the latest in data mining to get the most out of the collected data. The goal is not just selling. An important aspect is brand awareness. You may not need new shoes now, but when you do, you are much more likely to order shoes with a familiar brand name. Projecting the brand's "personality" is also important. Some companies target a market segment that aspires to be seen as "cool", so they themselves have to project coolness. Others target audiences that want to be seen as stylish and successful, so they must exude style and success. It has repeatedly been shown that consumers trust these brands the most whose brand personality matches their own aspirational identity. See for example this survey of the Gen Y market segment.  --Lambiam 06:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I still think it's silly. Most people will just buy whatever is on sale or clearance.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Define "most". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Be aware that what you think is countermanded by actual studies done on the subject. It's important to remove the personal perspective when trying to understand how the world actually works, and not to merely project our wishes for how it should work onto it, and treat those wishes as actual reality. As cited above, and by numerous rigorous studies done hundreds of times over many decades, the effects of marketing and brand awareness work, even if you think they don't. You're belief in its silliness has no effect on it's efficacy. --Jayron32 13:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)