Talk:Anna Anderson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

New Start for Anna Anderson

Reading the above I can see things are already getting out of hand, sadly.

I think there are many issues here. That is why I suggested that only the paragraphs above the Contents box be retained. I doubt any consenus will ever be reached due to differing opinions already emerging. Therefore the less stated the better. I think we all have much better things to do than get involved in yet more problems concerning a woman who was really very unimportant indeed.

DNA evidence repeatedly tested has proved that Anderson was NEVER ever a member of the Romanov family. Therefore she can NEVER ever have been Anastasia. Anastasia's remains have been located. That entire basis for the article should be that Anderson claimed for the majority of her life that she was Anastasia. That was from beginning to end completely WRONG.

I believe it is 99.9% proven that Anderson was Franziska Schankowska. There are no other claimants to that identity. DNA testing has proven that Karl Maucher, a great-nephew of Schankowska, was her relative. Their DNA matched. No other Schankowska has come forward claiming to be her. It is fact that she was Schankowska. Therefore this should be the basis for the start of any new article. Anderson was NEVER who she claimed to be. For whatever reason, she decided or was convinced by others to take on the identity of a brutally murdered Grand Duchess Anastasia. That in itself was rather pathetic.

Her whole life after declaring to be Anastasia was fraudulent. She persisted in claiming to be somebody she never was.

This is very little point going into what she claimed as it was always fraudulent. Going on about her 'claim' will only lead to supporters placing in factually incorrect information that may try to convince readers that her fraud was correct. It never was and as such will be refuted by editors who know what she stated was blatantly false.

What is known is that she jumped into a canal in Berlin attempting to suicide and was hauled out before she could drown. Grand Duchess Olga is famously quoted as saying this was the only thing ever true about Anderson's story. Anderson was admitted to a mental hospital where spent time as Fraulein Unbekannt (Miss Unknown). She was unwilling to reveal her real identity. Over a period of time the myth of her being Anastasia started to come about. Her claim to be Anastasia and the myth of rescue was never accurate ever. They myth varied as often as the wind blows in differing directions.

What is fact is that Anderson was exposed by relatives of the real Anastasia quite early on in the piece. Their identities were real unlike Anderson. Others who had closely known the real Anastasia also did the same. Anderson supporters then decided to attack those who knew the real Anastasia to try to build up their case. It has been proven that those who knew the real Anastasia were totally correct and the supporters were involved in vile tactics perpetuating fraud.

There were a number of Anderson conspirators who tried to con the world that Anderson was Anastasia. Whatever people have claimed about them they were all aiding and abetting a fraud mainly for financial reasons. It is fact that Rathlef and Botkin made monies out of articles and books pushing a false claim. There is no room for debate over the finances they gained out of the claim. Kurth was just one who has made considerable monies out of perpetuating fraud. It is completely impossible given Anderson's identity that any of them were ever really telling the truth about her identity. It should not be debated as it was all along wrong.

A court case went on for decades where the final verdict was that Anderson had failed to establish she was Anastasia. She could never convince those who mattered. It is fact that Anderson was not Anastasia so those who gave 'testimony' in court committed the crime of perjury. None of what they claimed was ever correct as Anderson was never Anastasia. That is fact.

Of course other events occurred with Anderson moving from place to place and carrying on in a highly bizarre fashion at times. Those who claim that Anderson 'remembered' things were part of the fraud. Their views are really not important as they were always fraudulent given that she was NEVER Anastasia.

It is well worth noting that basically none of the real Anastasia's family ever accepted Anderson. The motives of those who were attached to fraud have never been honestly explained. Certainly Grand Duke Andrew distanced himself once the Botkin letter emerged attacking the Tsar's sisters.

It really is pointless going into any details about her 'story' apart from the fact that she was a fraud. She married an eccentric basically to avoid deportation from USA, lived an incredibly bizarre existence and died. She was cremated and her ashes sent to Germany for burial. Left behind was physical evidence at a hospital where she had undergone a medical procedure that proved her undoing and real identity.

I really think all other contributors should read this very carefully indeed.

I believe it would be a very big mistake to make this article too long. Wikipedia states that 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. Given that Anderson was NEVER Anastasia, any information that attempts to support her incorrect claim as is completely unverifiable and contrary to what wikipedia demands. It therefore cannot be included. Most of the previous disagreements have occurred due to some pushing completely unverifiable incorrect information. Naturally those with real information have refuted the false claims. That should not happen again as long as false unverifiable information is excluded. Finneganw 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I had posted too that the less the better, because the more we add the more there will be disagreements and temptation of quote and info matching. Like of someone says she spoke all the same languages as AN, I'm going to have to add all the evidence that she didn't, and that will drag it out, so it's best to avoid the subject. If AA supporters say the FS family denied her, I'm going to have to add the part about spoiling her career, and how Dmitri L. said Felix S. changed his mind after speaking with her alone. We could give a list of who did and did not support her and their reasons for doing so, but it should never, ever be openly stated in any form that she "remembered" something, such as say, the 'funny animals', because she didn't because she wasn't Anastasia. At the very least, say this or that person alleged, or claimed, she said she remembered something, but even that is going into territory that is going to draw more detail and arguing.

The first thing that we can get rid of is the entire Heinrich K. mess, and with it the Preston arguments against it. Because there is no way the story could have happened, why even bring it up? We can say she claimed to have escaped in a cart with Tschiakovsky, and say there were several versions of her story. The other sections are entirely too long. Everything in the hospital visits, court case, all of them could be summed up in a few sentences, if at all. I am willing to give up a lot of what I consider excellent quotes and information in order to avoid tit for tat matching with AA supporters. We can debate what stays and what goes before we finalize it.

I have to say I disagree with Olga A. that her trying to commit suicide was the only indisputable fact in the story. According to Clara P's version, she was thrown into the canal by thugs, and in another version she was pushed, so even that has its controversy!

I personally feel that Rathlef and Botkin were in on the fraud, but proving it will be hard. Still, this does not mean they should be portrayed as innocent. We may never know which ones were really mistaken and which ones intentionally lied, but since there was a lot of money allegedly at stake there is high cause to believe many of her supporters were only after money. (ironically, this is what the AA supporters have accused detractors of for years, but now it appears it was the other way around!) We could use the Godl article as a reference on Gleb, and for me Rathlef's involvement speaks for itself. As I recently pointed out, even in Kurth's book, she says 'if you are right I will tell you' and then proceeds to encourage AA to 'remember' and have her verify if it's right or wrong- this right here gives Rathlef away. Obviously, she was sitting there with a huge pile of books and info on the Romanovs to be able to see if things are right or wrong, so that proves, yes proves, she had the material that could be used for 'memories.' Now add to that the FACT that AA was never AN, and we know for a fact she could NOT have had any of those memories. That adds up to Rathlef feeding them to her. We don't even have to tell this in the article, but since it is without doubt that Rathlef was a fraud there is no way any of her writings should be used as sources, including her versions of the meetings with Olga and Gilliard, which are denied by accounts of those people. Chat's claim that Olga read Rathlef's version and called them 'quite correct' cannot be true, because Olga did not read German well, and because her own writings in the months following tell a very different story.

You know, if we could break the case of just how the fraud was pulled off and who all was responsible, that would be something worth writing about. In the meantime I guess all we can do is try to start over from scratch and see what we come up with. I'm still on the side of minimal content to avoid 'sides' having to counteract the other, that will take us right back to square 1. If this means we both lose a lot of what we consider valuable info, that will be the compromise we need to improve the article and the sacrifice necessary to finally, finally end the bickering.

How about this? We all go to the sandbox and write a trial version and see what the others think?Aggiebean (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we better keep it minimal, because othewise, we would have to include all the evidence of the obvious likeness between AA and AN as pointed out by scientists, friends, relatives and available photos. And Botkin and Rathlef were, of course, "in on it." Rathlef fed her memories without knowing a thing about the IF apart from what was presented in newspapers and magazines at the time. Little by little, the books started appearing, and she could verify some of the things that Anderson claimed, but she mostly relied on Gilliard to confirm or deny what AA was claiming to know. Until January 1926, that is. As for the sentence: "If you are right, I will tell you", refers to the dog Jemmy. Frau Rathlef referred to him as Anastasia's dog, that ownership was stated in all papers and books, but AA said: "No, he was Tatiana's dog, I just liked to hold him." One can only wonder who told her that. Botkin did not meet her until May 1927, so he could not "give" her any memories. Also, Olga's own letters to the invalid after the visit to Mommsen clinic can not be included either, because she clearly "remembers the times they were together (in Russia)", and that totally ruins the Vorres depiction of her visit. We must, however, include the remark "We left her to her career", no matter if this is only unsourced hearsay. It serves the view of some people, and that's enough. And Mr. Leuchtenberg's remark must also be saved, just don't include the thing about the imperial dentist that he told, because then we would know that he could not be trusted. As for her languages, how do you prove that someone did not speak a certain language? That one will be interesting to read. And all that money that Botkin and Rathlef made, that should be enough to cast suspicion on them forever. Never mind that Rathlef gave the entire proceeds from her book to AA's upkeep. And Botkin was living from check to check his whole life. The Godl article should definitely be used as reference for Gleb Botkin. A little more hearsay only adds spice to the article. It will definitely be a fun read when it is ready. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, you really do believe we are 'afraid' of her, but that is ridiculous. All I can say is, no. We are only trying to reduce the amount of info because most of it causes disputes and elongates the article as we all add what we want to say. This needs to stop.

Yes, I know Rathlef didn't know anything about the family and couldn't have had first hand memories (like Botkin) but you are wrong that all she had were a few articles and the books appeared 'little by little.' By the time Rathlef took up with AA in 1925, there were already several books out for some time, "Last Days of the Romanovs" 1920, Gilliard's book and Tatiana Botkin's original memoirs, 1921, Lili Dehn's book and the one about Ernie's trip, 1922, Anna Vyrubova's book, 1923. By the time she came to America, the books by Sophie Buxhoeveden and Alexei Volkov and others were also available. So tell me Chat how did Rathlef verify the memories as right or wrong unless she had all the information in those writings? (and since AA couldn't have any of Anastasia's memories because she was really FS, doesn't Rathlef look quite guilty of feeding or encouraging such false memories!) They had to get the dog name out of one of the books. The story of it being Tatiana's is not right, she was Anastasia's dog, given to her by Anna V. when she had to leave it behind when she was arrested. In a letter to Vyrubova form Tobolsk, Anastasia writes 'your little dog is with me all the time and is very nice.' And holding 'him' is also incorrect, as Jemmy was a female dog! Tatiana's dog, also taken into captivity, was named Ortino. Aggiebean (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And if you had bothered to READ Frau Rathlef's book, you would have seen that she used Gilliard to verify AA's "memories". Most of what AA stated, were just ordinary things from childhood, not very convincing or original. Just a few things were rather peculiar: She identified a photo of a lady-in-waiting and described the surroundings at Spala, both confirmed by Gilliard. She also mentioned a white pony, and years later Botkin remembered the "little white horse" which was a gift from a cossack to the Tsar. She described pieces of the Tsarina's jewelry, and she described the rooms in the palace, telling where different peoples rooms were etc. She also gave a detailed description of the last night in Ekaterinburg, even saying that "our coats were left behind with diamonds in their buttons. We were only going into another room." Several books were published before Frau Rathlef was engaged to look after AA, but we do not know when and if these were translated to German. Tatiana Botkin's book was never translated. Your bible, "Im Angesicht der Revolution" is so obscure that nobody has been able to verify its existence. If it was on the market in Germany, it would certainly have been used by the opposition in the court case. It is curious to observe that the people at Darmstadt were the ones to go public with AA's allegation about the trip to Russia. AA and Frau Rathlef never mentioned the story in public until then, knowing it touched a sore spot. The dog Jemmy was given to Tatiana before the outbreak of WWI. Whether or not it was a male or not, is of no importance. AA's German was so bad, she called everything "das" (it). Frau Rathlef must have assumed it was a male in spite of all her alleged information from books. ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, when are you going to get a clue, it doesn't matter what Rathlef claimed, she is the one who is discredited! Even if she said Gilliard confirmed something, I don't believe her. Gilliard hated her and bashed her heavily in his own book. He called her AA's impresario. Again, you are so stuck in your own realm of reality where AA was AN you can't see anything beyond and that, again, is why you have no business editing this article. As for the dog, no, it was given to the girls at the time of the revolution and became Anastasia's. It had been Anna V's beloved pet, and when she was arrested by Kerensky, she had to leave the dog behind, see Nicholas and Alexandra. And if Frau Rathlef assumed the dog was male due to information in books, again, that admits she was looking at those books, and could have assumed a lot more, and used it to help AA with memories. The gig is up, the news is out, we've finally found her out.

"Im Angesicht der Revolution" does exist, I have spoken to a German girl who owns a copy and she even described its cover. This is how I found out about it. Aggiebean (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the gig is up, just because you say so. Not because all Gilliards correspondence with Frau Rathlef are part of the Fallows archives at the Houghton Library at Harvard. Maybe you and Finneganw should pay it a visit, and then come back here with your "discredited" grumblings. The spaniel Jemmy was given to Tatiana before the outbreak of WWI. And with a name like Jemmy, one would assume it was a boy, wouldn't one? But you have now found Frau Rathlef out, without even opening her book, so what can I say. And your book exists? Well, that's nice. But it would be even nicer if the German girl could scan us an excerpt. ChatNoir24 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can believe the correspondences, but there are numerous holes in Anna Anderson's stories, and you can't ignore the nearly irrefutable DNA evidence! Wikipedia is not a place for you to express fringe views that have all but been discredited by the mainstream media and current historians. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not because I 'say so' but because AA wasn't AN. That is all the proof we need. Sorry you can't accept it but it's true. You really need to understand that the fact that all the bodies have now been found and identified completely rules out any chance that anyone survived, therefore AA wasn't Anastasia and the 'memories' of AA were given her to by others. Your tired insistence that she was Anastasia anyway is wasting time while we need to be working on a factual article.(edited to say this crossed paths with the post above and I hadn't seen it yet when I wrote this. Would also like to add that there is 'correspondence' from Gilliard and his wife stating that while they felt sorry for the 'invalid' they had 'not seen in her Anastasia.' I have much doubt of anything Rathlef claims, and she is completely discredited.)Aggiebean (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And who says that AA was AN? All I am doing, is to show you the details of AA's life, the reasons she was believed by so many and managed to get her case to the German courts. But this obviously scares you very much. ChatNoir24 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Anderson has ever scared me. In fact her whole ridiculous nonsense was extremely pathetic and quite frankly hysterically funny for anybody with the slightest knowledge of the Romanovs and Russian history. It could all be so easily seen through. The attacks on real people who knew the real Anastasia and the Romanovs and their entourage were truly beneath contempt. The only ones who really won out were lawyers and publishers of fraud. ChatNoir24 your continued pushing of a proven fraud is unacceptable. The game is over. Anderson and her discredited supporters have been well and truly exposed by credible historians, eminent scientists and the world media. Finneganw 09:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues already emerging due to ChatNoir24 pushing discredited sources

ChatNoir24 is once again pushing an agenda which is extremely POV and inaccurate. It is about time it stopped. Rathlef is a totally discredited source. The article can only according to wikipedia contain verifiable information. Nothing Rathlef pushes is verifiable as it is FACT that Anderson was a fraud. She had no memories. Rathlef never knew the real Anastasia so it is all rubbish. I believe ChatNoir24 has been warned already by mods not to use discredited sources and yet he still cannot get the message. I am taking this matter now further as such POV inaccuracy has no place on the page. Finneganw 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I don't believe we will make any progress on this article until ChatNoir24 is banned or topic blocked. He has proven time and time again he has no desire to change or accept reality. If we are to get down to business and fix this thing we can't have his long winded rants backing AA being the real Anastasia. That is over. Please, someone stop this now so we can move on. If not, he will continue like this forever and nothing will be resolved.Aggiebean (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the comments by ChatNoir24 in the above thread I think it's pretty obvious who is blocking any further progress on this page. I agree that one of the admins who are now watching this page should give him a timeout. The mainstream view is very well established and this sort of persistent pushing of personal analysis is very unhelpful. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh My God

Jeez, people, let's stop derailing DrKay's honest opinion-asking on the topic! We can have this dogfight again and all get nearly into trouble, or we can STICK TO THE CONSESNUS THAT EXISTS NOW. I'm in agreement with all consensus so far achieved. I agree that ChatNoir24 must somehow be excluded if he continues his unreasonability.

I think my only trouble is that we seem unable to even agree on how to structure the darned thing. A few of my suggestions were shot down by finneganw (as expected). But what I am saying about the structure is that we must follow history's structure or else we're revisionists. This means a structure beginning with finn's ideas. Somewhere we must include the historical facts about her fraud-status, if you will, and why certain people responded as they did in her favor. This has to include a mention of Kurth, because how do we get others to understand and avoid Kurth if we pretend he didn't write the thing? We cannot do that; we can only demonstrate why Kurth's not viable or trustworthy as a source.

Also, there seems to be some obsession here about not linking the subject with HIH Grand Duchess Anastasia. I do not like that at all. If I may again make a comparison, this is like trying to ease Goerring away from the Holocaust, you see what I'm getting at? No link to HIH will sway people as aggie believes, because the article and science will be crystal clear that she was an impostor!!

INTERJECTION, SORRY... I mean, how do you expose the fraud factually then not make a connexion with the person the fraud was pretending to be? Sorry.75.21.155.47 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I have a problem with this avoidance of conspiracy theory. As seen clearly in Massie's book among other places, there has been a conspiracy theory floating about since 1919 about possible survival of Imperial Family members. I say we mention, not make a meal of, this fact. Otherwise someone else will just come along and add it, and then there goes the mad bomb again....

My above comments I think might assist us in reaching consensus on structure, content at its basics and go from there. But not if these POVs about structure and content keep raging! We must have the historical truth and I see no reason why it cannot be laid out chronologically with the facts, and I do agree the less, the better.75.21.155.47 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes we must most definitely have historical and scientific proof. Derailing this by going off on a tangent using discredited source information from known fraudster Kurth and his fellow fantasy writers is not the way. Finneganw 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See below, finn. You're getting out of your league with this one....75.21.155.47 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is the type of useless statement that does not advance anything here. I had thought 75 also knows as RevAntonio had got beyond rants. Finneganw 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Discreditation

This is one of the points I have been trying to make: you cannot simply keep droning ad nauseam that Kurth is discredited. We know he is, we know why. All the more reason why we must have sources that state "Kurth is discredited." No more than two ought to be sufficient.75.21.155.47 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources that say Kurth is discredited and you know it. He is discredited by the simple fact that AA was proven not to be Anastasia and most of his book is written as if she is by supporters who claimed she remembered Anastasia's life. Because these things have been proven impossible, it is discredited. The parts based on the writings of Rathlef and Botkin are now essentially reduced to fiction. This is common sense.Aggiebean (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me, I know nothing of the sort, but if what you are saying is true, then why do you guys keep saying Kurth is discredited? You cannot do that. I'm not setting up anyone... I really thought you had the sources, as you keep saying you had. You cannot continue the intellectual dishonesty and expect consensus.75.21.155.47 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I missed some points to add: what I mean here aggie, is that you are dishonest if you insist Kurth is "discredited" or a "liar" without sources... my goodness, this whole thing is about sources! All you can state in the article is what you just stated above, and that is sloppy, unnecessary writing! We have to present this in another way, aggie, don't you see your comment makes YOU look like you're pushing a POV?--The POV that Kurth is discredited, that he is a liar. If he was badly motivated, wrong, lied in his book, etc., as we know, that is STILL NOT A SOURCE to back up what you're trying to say. What I'm saying is we need to do better than aggie if we are going to exclude Kurth's falsehoods! Otherwise, do you know how bad this all looks? Now you have on your hands the obligation to mention and even cite Kurth's book of lies, but you cannot POV the article to death without sources that he is a liar and a fraud! You can't see that?75.21.155.47 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Some attention to this

I've asked Vyvyan to come here and give opinion on how we present Kurth's role and fraudulent book. This is the next big detail that needs consensus. I see how bad it all is, Kurth the liar and accessory to fraud, and a fraud in his own right. We can say that here and we know what we know. But as I said, you're being dishonest to state this-or-that about Kurth or ANYONE, without sources. So we have to do it another way. And you know perfectly well that you cannot re-do this entry without reference to Kurth! My God, the man re-made her fraud and turned her into a notorious legend!75.21.155.47 (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And an added idea

Maybe we can do aggiebean's line of reasoning in some brief way in the article. She has the proper evidence, that's true, but has no source, and she herself cannot be a source... none of us can. So how about we point at the rotten sources in Kurth? This way the reader sees Kurth's book for what it is. This way Kurth is not left out, which is not for us to decide to do either, because we have to in a way expose him. And this way, it is painfully clear that Kurth can be inferred to be fraudulent! The article itself, if well handled, can be a future source for others to show Kurth for what he really is! I've asked DrKay for opinion on this also.75.21.155.47 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooh so I see what your little game is, 75.Rev/whatever. You come here pretending to be nice, and then you pull some more outrageous stunt. You are going to tell us if we can't find a book that says 'Kurth is discredited' then he's not? You know as well as I do no book has come out since the recent announcements of all bodies being found. However this is the only source we need to disprove all those alleged 'memories' as recorded by Rathlef and claimed by Botkin:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004838

Time you and Chat woke up and realized that BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT ANASTASIA some things are obvious now! Gee whiz, mods, why didn't you stop these guys while you had the chance? Now the page is a hopeless rant again and we made NO progress.Aggiebean (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To say that Kurth is discredited, is rather inane. Kurth did not make his book up, he based it on writings, conversations, affidavits and testimonies from the people who took part in Anna Anderson's life. Everything he writes, is sourced, and if you don't want to refer to Kurth, you may refer to his source. And if you don't like the things AA told to Rathlef and Botkin, maybe you should stick to the things that she told Grand Duke Andrew or the Duke of Leuchtenberg or Tatiana Botkin or Alexis Volkov or Xenia Leeds etc etc. They can't all be lying, can they? ChatNoir24 (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious they all were as Anderson was never who she claimed to be. That has been proven 100%. End of story. Finneganw 05:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.177.200 (talk)

Time out?

How about a week-long hiatus on editing of this article and arguing of the content, etc.? I think some progress was made in agreeing to cut the article back to the lead. We've also had some useful discussions on how to structure the article. Maybe discussions on content changes should wait for awhile. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, are we taking bookworm's suggestion that we all stop for a week 'cooling down' period before beginning work on the rest of the article?Aggiebean (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to have a break. Finneganw 02:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A big NO

Wait, wait wait! Aggiebean, do NOT start YOUR campaign of muck-disturbing again! I warned you and so did everyone else. I have no agenda regarding Kurth except to properly use him in the new entry. If you are not schooled enough to understand sources and citations, that is your problem, not the article's problem and not our problem. I say Kurth is a liar and a fraud. I know why he is now... I'm flexible that way, or try to be. But if I or anyone else were to write that into the article, or use it as a pretext for excluding him, we'd all be forcing a POV!

Still don't get it though, do you?

Now you are going to pick a fight, begin shooting your accusations around due to your own inferiority complex! Now you have Boolworm saying let's all take a week off, as if that were going to happen!

I've invited Vyvyan and DrKay to iron out how we present Kurth, because we must present the rat if we are to show rats exist! And now YOU want to start fights and Bookworm, as usual, wants to run from finishing this work!

I've told you aggiebean, and I'll tell you again, I'm not taking your bait, and I'm also not going to allow you to tar & feather me with ChatNoir's brush again! It is my fervent hope that only Bookworm is falling for these silly games. Lord, aggiebean, you show more and more that you really cannot or do not read/understand anything you don't want to read/understand.75.21.155.47 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey 75.IP, I never said Kurth was intentionally a liar and a fraud. I think when he wrote the book he totally believed AA was AN (and he still does) and that the things the people said she 'remembered' really happened. I do not think the set out to intentionally trick anybody into accepting a known fraud (though of course he was biased in his presentation, but this was because of his own strong belief). But the issue is, now that AA has been proven a fraud, much of what is contained in his book is now discredited as fiction that could not have happened and that is why we cannot use it in a factual article. Aggiebean (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting back on track

Where to now? I think this really is a very unimportant article for wikipedia. Anderson basically did nothing in her life apart from live off others pretending to be somebody she never was. She was exposed as a fraud and that's about it. I tend to think the article should be kept to a minimum - not much more than the initial header needs to be entered. Finneganw 02:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is just fine as it is now, except maybe adding a brief mention of the long court case to explain why money was the motive for the claim and that is why it lasted so long while others faded quickly. I do not think we should get into any specific details of her claim, who said what, because it will only lead to quote matching and edit wars. Leave it all out.

I also do not think that the POV that she 'might' be FS should be included. With no evidence she was anyone else, and with everyone but Kurth and a few supporters denying it, there really is no case to have any question about her identity in a fact based article.Aggiebean (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could draft a lawsuit sentence at #Lawsuit? and comment on the proposed Schanzkowska draft at #Franziska Schanzkowska. DrKay (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also one more thing- I am adding the link to Dr. Michael Coble's DNA report on the burned remains as compared to the bones found earlier, as this gives a better detailed description and answers all the questions and will be better at helping readers understand.The link was previously in the end chapter which has now been deleted.Aggiebean (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead is too long with all the DNA evidence in it, and the sketch of her life is to be added yet. I think it would be best to split the DNA evidence off into a new section. All that is required in the lead is one or two sentences saying that the DNA evidence confirms Anderson was not Anastasia. DrKay (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to disagree DrKay. It is crucial that major evidence is in the lead about the DNA evidence as it is that precise information that proves her identity. For too long this article has been distorted by the lunatic fringe who will do anything to press their extreme POV to try to doubt this and as a result there have been major edit wars for years. I cannot imagine you wish to see any of that start up again. I most certainly don't. Anderson's identity is no longer in doubt and major DNA testing is the reason why. It is not something that is doubted by an credible historians or major news agencies as currently clearly quoted in the lead. It is not something to be mentioned merely in passing. It is the crux of her whole real identity and nothing else should be put in the way to at all compromise what is proven fact. Most of Anderson's life was complete fabrication. As such it has all been demolished and why is this? It is because of DNA testing. I believe Aggiebean has given very good advice on how to go in this matter. The article really should be very short indeed as the person described is really of very little importance. Certainly today her attempt at identification theft would last no longer than a week as DNA evidence would demolish any attempt. There is a new book coming out soon that will provide further evidence about her fraud. Finneganw 08:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Information on Anderson's life should go in the main body of the article. At present the basic bones are in the lead such as her date of birth and death and real identity. I think we need to be very careful how we proceed with describing her life. Very little is known about Franziska Schankowska's childhood although there is more about her adolescence up until her disappearance to transform herself into Fraulein Unbekannt and then to try to pass herself off as Tatiana and then Anastasia. It really is a minefield. I think that is why the article should be very brief as there really is no evidence to back up any of her claims about her adult life. DNA evidence demolished them all. Finneganw 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Kay. The lead is to be a summary of the body of the article. All that is necessary is to say DNA testing has determined she was not Anastasia. A separate section can give more detail about what the tests determined, how they were performed, where and when, and what they mean. As far as her adult life, the main events are not in question. We know where she lived, whom she knew, whom she married, what claims she made and what movies and books were based on her life. Those are all things that must be included in a biography. She did have significance considering the court trials, the movies based on the story, the books written about her and the popular myth that grew out of the stories. She's the reason why Anastasia is the best known member of the family, even though she was not Anastasia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, the article only establishes that she was not Anastasia. It does not provide an actual biography of her. It does not establish most of the first sentence of the article, since it does not discuss her actually pretending to be Anastasia, nor anyone who believed (or at least supported) her claim, let alone establish that she was the most famous Romanov imposter. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing at all 'famous' about Anderson/Schankowska. The article clearly states Anderson was not Anastasia and is Schankowska. I think you mistake the meaning of the word 'famous'. She was 'notorious'. The two words do not mean the same thing. Certainly a lot of people made money out of her fake identity over the years writing fraudulent books and dreaming up fantasy plays, ballets and films, but that is nothing to write an article about. That is trivia. There were other fraudsters who also made money out of stealing Romanov identities. Bookworm you know also only too well that Anderson has been 99.9% proven to be Schankowska. There is no other person matching the DNA. Finneganw 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by your response. I never claimed she was Anastasia, in fact I specifically said the article proved that she was not Anastasia. The fact that people made money off of her claim and that her claim got public attention is not trivia - it is the only indication that this woman has any notability at all - it is the only reason that anyone bothered to prove that she was not Anastasia. But this article is incomplete. If this article is going to state in its first sentence that she was "the most famous of several impostors who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia" it needs to show that she claimed to be Anastasia and it needs to show that she recieved public attention for this claim. Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Finneganw is right. We've been through this long enough to know, so please believe us, the more you add, the more there will be the same old arguments and edit wars, dueling content and tit for tat quote matching which ruined the last article and has caused problems for years. You will not be able to avoid those who want to leave an impression she may have been genuine will try to add information about her 'memories' which are now obviously proven false. We know she HAD to have gotten them from others, however, with no actual sourced proof of whom she got them from, we cannot add that info to the article. So letting them stand as 'fact' only plays into the hands of the AA supporters, because they can use a source that claims such things and we have nothing to counteract it with (yet, maybe the book coming out next year will help) other than another quote matching battle, and of course the DNA. This is why it must be kept brief. This does NOT mean, as Chat has claimed, that we are 'afraid' of the 'facts', but the problem is, with encyclopedia form, if you do not have a source, you can't just up and explain it away and this is what will be allowed to leave the impression that some of the things they use are true when they are not. This article really is a different case than most on wikipedia, because it is based not on an actual life but on a person who spent her life stealing someone else's identity, and most of her 'fame' was for 'being' somebody she wasn't. This makes it a special exception and the usual format for biographies does not fit here.

If we add anything else, it should only be at a very bare minimum, mention the court case being over the money, MAYBE a small list of who did and did not accept her and their quotes (but even this will cause edit wars as some AA supporters claim those who denied her 'lied', were 'paid off', etc. and try to put such leading info in the article though now it has been totally discredited.) I see nothing wrong with telling the pathetic story of her eccentric later years, since that really doesn't involve her claim and was her life personally, but as Finneganw has mentioned, the real problem with making this a 'biography' of her is that the majority of her life she was pretending to be someone she wasn't, and if you tell the story, you're allowing the Anastasia myth to creep back into it. Please don't let that happen.Aggiebean (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To state that the court case was only over money, is simplifying things a bit. The Bank of England never admitted to holding any tsarist deposits. A day after the negative verdict in 1967, it formally denied that it held any funds in wait for the the heir of the Tsar. But the appeal still went on. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Chat we know you believe she was only after her 'name' but she needed the 'name' to get the money. I thought the Bank of England denied it long before that, and she changed it to a bank IN England. Also there were other rumors of money, as reported in the NY Times. If it hadn't been for the lure of money, her case would not have lasted so long. Nobody was going to invest so much into it- or in fighting it- if money wasn't involved. The case being mainly over money is the big reason why her claim outlasted so many other claimants' who had no lawsuit against the family. A lot of people have asked, if she wasn't real, why did her claim last so long while others faltered? Clearly the answer is the lawsuit and the pop culture legends created around her. Which reminds me-I do not have a problem with leaving in the 'pop culture' section as long as it's clear all the things in it are fictional.

But- as you can all see, here we go again: the more details we bring up, the more argument and stalemate there will be over them, which is why Finneganw's idea of a brief article is best.Aggiebean (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for the long, long lawsuits were many. First, in 1941, after the first verdict was given by the Central District Court in Berlin, an appeal was lodged by Leverkühn and Vermehren. But by 1942, everything was suspended for the rest of the war. By 1947, the files lost in the war or held by Annette Fallows, were somewhat rebuilt, but for the next 10 years, as good as nothing happened. The appeal was finally brought to the High Court in West Berlin in 1957. The negative verdict came in 1961. The High Court of appeals then received the case in 1964, and another negative verdict was issued in 1967. In 1970, the Supreme Court at Karlsruhe was asked to examine the procedure of the lower court for judicial errors. The appeal was again rejected, and AA's claim was regarded as "non liquet". Neither established, nor refuted. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like ChatNoir24 has forgotten which day the garbage is picked up as he is still going on with complete rubbish. The main thing about Anderson/Schankowska is that the attempts by her supporters in court were all about gaining money that did not exist. If there had been money the Romanovs would not have relied on King George V and his successors for support. I guess ChatNoir24 has no idea about the monies received by Maria Feodorovna in exile from George V and others who knew she had none apart from that gained from the jewels and sale of Hvidore after her death. Danish companies also supported her in gratitude for what she had done as Empress on their behalf. Xenia also relied on the British Crown for a grace and favour house. Granador was an attempt by Anderson supporters to get money and to promise monies that did not exist. No German court ever accepted Anderson's identity. She and her supporters wanted to con others into believeing she was Anastasia so they could get money. The courts could see this and would not be party to fraud. In fact no court ever accepted Anderson legally as Anastasia. Nobody is interested in fantasy here ChatNoir24. It's sad you still don't understand reality and fact about Anderson. That is why you have no place editing the article as you wish to pollute it with your grossly inaccurate POV. Please use the sandbox in future as the article needs to be 100% verifiable and not based on discredited hearsay. Finneganw 00:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposed approach and with your assessment of her significance. The movie "Anastasia" was based on the Anderson myth. She's worthy of a bio and a bio is an accounting of a life, with the details that I included above, not simply a long paragraph about who she was or who she was not. I won't agree to a bio that does not include the details I mention in the message above. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bookworm, can't you just keep the stuff about the books and movies based on her in an 'Anna in pop culture' section? It has no business in the article itself. I also stand that this cannot be a real 'bio' because her life was based on a lie, therefore we can't tell it the way you do the real lives of anybody else.Aggiebean (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe much of what Bookworm is suggesting belongs in a Trivia section as none of the books, films and tv series were based on reality. They all supported disproven fantasy. That is why they cannot go into the main part of the article as they are not based on fact. Finneganw 13:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be that her life was based on a lie, but you still cannot sweep it under the carpet. What happened around her was all part of it, like it or not. As Bookworm states: She is worthy of a bio. ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well actually Chat you can, and that's where it belongs. You cannot tell it like a regular bio because she was not really Anastasia, though that is the 'story' of her life, because it turned out to be false. All that should be said is that she pretended to be Anastasia and was proven false.Aggiebean (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

She was a real person. She was born, she lived, she died. It's perfectly feasible to write a biography about her. It's completely unrealistic to expect the article to remain as short as it is now. However, we should finalize the lead before moving onto future sections. We're still waiting for a draft of a sentence on the lawsuit, a very brief sketch of her life, and agreement on how to phrase the sentences on her identification with Schanzkowska. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to find that none of what you propose is possible considering the circumstances, and those involved, and that nothing is going to be resolved that easily. For the last two years, we've been trying to do what you ask, and you see what has transpired.Aggiebean (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I sadly have to agree. This is not a normal person you are dealing with here DrKay. This is a person whose whole life was based on a fraud that been graphically exposed all over the world. In fact Anderson denied her real identity for most of her life. That is the major problem here. If you wish to have a verifiable article according to wikipedia guidelines this article will not comply with the usual standard biography rules as the person in question broke all of the agreed rules pretending to be somebody she never was. That is why it is not a normal case at all. The moment you try to write down her so-called 'life' you find you enter the realms of unverifiable discredited fantasy. I tend to think that should be avoided if this article is to have any worth whatsoevr. I think this all needs much greater thought or we will end up with nonsense and inevitably a POV article resulting in edit wars as have occurred due to incorrect content for years here. I for one would like to see that not happening. Certainly it is possible to write something of Schankowska and her early life before her 'disappearance' and reemergence as Fraulein Unbekannt. As for any claims about an alternative identity, they have all been completely disproven. Certainly we already have basic facts about her life. Extreme POV fantasy though should be avoided. Finneganw 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Dr. Kay's message above and will not accept anything that is not a complete bio of a person who was born, lived and died and about whom we know the main facts of her life such as where and how she lived, whom she knew, whom she married. Anything else would be nonsensical. We have the brief outlines of Franziska's life and character as well, looking at Massie's book. Let's work on the sketch that Dr. Kay asked for above. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as you are so determined to go ahead with your opinion you should attempt to write one. Don't expect though for others to blindly accept it if it is full of discredited and inaccurate information. Remember that Franziska Schankowska was Anna Anderson so please don't try to prove otherwise as there is no scientific or historic fact to back up such an opinion. Finneganw 02:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do let us see your sample story. I really won't accept the idea that AA 'may' have been FS when there is so much evidence that she was. No one doubts it but Kurth and a small but vocal handful of supporters. Appeasing them is not enough reason to leave any unnecessary speculation and doubt about her identity in the article many will read for information and facts.Aggiebean (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by removing all mention of the real events of her life and the false events that she claimed, you do not remove all doubt about her identity because you do not discuss her identity at all. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually all we need to prove her identity is the DNA. Getting into the details of the story which have been very much embellished in various pro AA sources over the years is a huge problem, because it leaves the impression she was real, and that is what we must now avoid. What Finneganw and I are trying to say is LOOK at the history of this article for the last few years and see for yourself where trying to tell the story of her life as it was has led. There is NO WAY- repeat NO WAY- we can do it without all the arguing, tit for tat quote matching, sneak attacks of commentary positive to the 'other side', etc. If you do not believe me, the article history speaks for itself. I have written a lengthy and sourced website on this topic, and I'd love to be able to do that here, I tried- but considering the strong feelings of AA supporters, it doesn't work. The more details you add, the more disagreeing and edit warring there will be. It cannot be done. History has proven this, and this is what has led us to where we are today. That is why we feel the way we do.Aggiebean (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is sufficient accurate detail about Anderson's life and identity in the lead. She really was not important at all. She never did anything worthwhile apart from sponge of others pretending to be somebody she never was. All in all a rather sad, pathetic, mentally ill individual. Edward321 I suggest you wait until the new book comes out to read the reality of this woman. There is nothing special about her at all. If she had attempted to pull off in 2009 what she tried to do unsuccessfully in life, identity fraud, she would be in prison. Finneganw 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of the fights you can look forward to if we go forward with writing details of her life: 1. Whether or not she was FS 2. Who among those who swore she did nor did not remember something/speak a language/etc. was the 'liar' 3. Whether or not Olga and Gilliard actually accepted her and then turned their backs, or never accepted her, or were paid off to keep hush! 4. Exactly when and how her claim began, and how the details emerged 5. Whether or not Gleb Botkin was sincere in his belief or helping her cause for money, and if he was involved in Grandanor

Why should I go on? EVERY single detail, other than the fact that she married Jack Manahan and lived her final years in squalor and eccentricity in Charlottesville, VA, WILL be debated and sourly contested here. That is what has been happening, and it will not stop.

The problem with the AA story is that, since it's been mostly supporters who write about her, there is a LOT of now false info out there that could technically be quoted and told as a 'documented fact' in the article, and because hardly anyone has bothered to write about her since she's been disproven, there really isn't much to officially argue with. So you see, the ordinary rules of a bio on wiki which work fine for 99.9% of articles, will not work here and will only lead to the very kind of incorrect and/or misleading info we are trying to avoid. The DNA is the only real proof we have that all of what supporters claimed was fake, but we cannot let it stand that everything was on her side other than the DNA, because that leaves the impression the DNA may be wrong and get people wondering and that is just what the AA supporters want. There is a lot of info against her, and a lot of very reasonable explainations for 'mysteries' in the case, but putting a source to them is not going to be easy. This is why we really, really can't get into the gory details.

I don't see a problem with the pop culture section listing movies about her, as long as it's clear they are fiction.Aggiebean (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot see why there has to be such a fight over the above points.

1. There is no proof anywhere that she was FS. Only possibly maternally related. 2. The liars were usually felled by their contradicting statements and writings. 3. That Gilliard and Olga believed her to be the Grand Duchess, is expressed in their writings immediately after the visit to Mommsen. Three months later, they changed their story. Why not just state that they were wrong and leave it at that? Olga was definitely not paid off in any way. The relationship between the Grand Duke of Hesse and Gilliard is unclear, and nobody knows for sure if money changed hands. The only thing we know for sure, is that Gilliard gave himself the title: The representative of the House of Hesse. The only ones that we know were paid handsomely, were The Scherl Press and Doris Wingender. 4. Her claim to be a grand duchess began with her "coming out" to Nurse Thea Malinovsky in the fall of 1921. This is confirmed by miss Malinovsky in her article in the Nachtausgabe, her letter to Mr. Kurt Pastenaci and her testimony to Edward Fallows together with Dr. Chemnitz. 5. Gleb Botkin clearly recognized her as the Grand Duchess, as did his sister. Grandanor was a gamble for the investors, incorporated in order to raise money for Fallows's travels and work since he worked without a retainer. Gleb Botkin had no money to invest, and would therefore not have benefitted from Grandanor even if a fortune had been found. He was, however, at the receiving end of AA's will. When he found out about that, he secretly made arrangements for any future money from AA's estate to go to the American Red Cross. He was very well aware of the consequenses of receiving any money from AA: Everybody would blame him for "being on the take."ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

^^ and here we go! My biggest beefs are with the nurse story, which DID NOT happen as told, it was impossible, since she was not Anastasia, to have had the info and to have had it before the claim began and people started visiting. It is very obvious that is now discredited, because the claim only began in 1922 when one of the other mental patients showed her a picture and told her she looked like Tatiana. Then it took several years for her 'memories' to emerge as she had more contact with emgires and those with books like Rathlef to help her. AA was not AN, therefore it was impossible for her to tell the whole story in 1921. This is the kind of thing AA supporters cling to that 'prove' she 'had' to be real, but since we know she wasn't, we know the story wasn't true. So what if somebody said it, even in court. A lot of people say a lot of things, even in court, it does not prove any of it is true. My other beef is that she wasn't FS. When everyone accepts this except a few AA supporters, you know there's something wrong. She was always suspected to be FS since the 20's adn the DNA matched, why would she be some other mysterious unknown person with the same DNA and the same face who vanished in the same time and place AA appeared? You can see here, the same old and I do mean SAME OLD worn out and I do mean WORN OUT arguments that go in circles and back again but take us nowhere are here, and this is what comes from trying to put details of her 'life' into the story. Don't even get me started on the villanization of Olga A and Gilliard which are pure POV fabrications by Rathlef perpetuated by Kurth. This is what has caused issues and fights for years, and it will not just go away. This is why Finneganw and I keep saying we cannot do it, and have to leave it with what we have (and a pop culture section)Aggiebean (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If the nurse story did not happen as told, it would be nice if you could back it up. And no matter what she told nurse Malinovsky, it does not make her a grand duchess in any way. It only shows that she picked Anastasia from the beginning, no more, no less. That Clara Peuthert mistook her for Tatiana, is quite understandable, even Olga said that the likeness with Tatiana was very strong. As for her "memories" emerging, we have to realize that there was nobody like Frau Rathlef around in the beginning who made notes of everything she said. Only police inspector Grünberg wrote down the story of her "escape". Kleist also wrote a kind of narrative, but it was burned with Gilliard's papers, and can no longer be verified. As for Gilliard and Olga, there is no villanization of any of them. Their own writings speak for themselves. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again ChatNoir24 reappears pushing grossly inaccurate discredited information. Take your ridiculous disproven Nurse story somewhere else as it is completely unverifiable. Also stop slandering the reputations of Grand Duchess Olga and others. Your bizarre Rathlef/Kurth etc. fabrications have been exposed. Also do try some other credible tactics as nobody except rabid Anderson supporters knocks the DNA results. Go back and do some real research rather than pushing your fantasies. Your fallen Goddess can be worshipped elsewhere. Maybe you can go and worship St. Gleb, pusher of mistruths, and his bizarre cult of Aphrodite. Finneganw 01:47, 27 June 2009

Exactly the kind of totally discredited info we cannot have in the article, and sadly another example of why this isn't going to work.Aggiebean (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As I feared this debate seems to have reverted to the old pattern of bickering and arguing about personal beliefs rather than how to improve the article. I think the proposed time out about a week ago was a good idea for that exact reason. In other news, the lead is too long but it's not a terribly urgent issue. Let's face it; this is never going to be a good article. There's too much about AA to disagree about for that to ever happen. I think, with that in mind, that a decent stub with pointers to references where the reader can learn more about this and make up their own mind is preferable to another edit war and/or an article riddled with original research, undue weight problems and language that can hardly be considered NPOV. I think DrKay should be applauded for having tried to mediate here but getting this beyond stub status is more than can be realistically achieved. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I applaud also what DrKay has tried to do. That is why I think the article needs to be left as a starting point for others to do further reading themselves. Wikipedia has been generous supplying a very good reference section through the help of editors like myself. The crux of the issue is that Anderson was never who she claimed to be and from the time of her fraudulent declaration she always stated she was Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia. That has been proven to be completely false. Basically everything she and her supporters claimed about her has been proven to be completely wrong. When accurate information is presented about her real identity, rabid Anderson supporters come along and alter or distort it or push unverifibale discrdited fabrication which is simply not acceptable. A look at the last few years of the article shows this to be true, sadly. I have tried repeatedly to establish a decent article here only to see it ripped apart repeatedly by those who cannot accept basic historical or scientific fact and wish to prefer to live in a fantasy world. A new book is coming out later this year which will be a good foundation. I suggest it is wise to wait until its publication as it contains fully verifiable information about Anderson/Schankowska. I'd really like to see this article go ahead. It can't though while Anderson supporters fail to accept reality. I suggest we stick with what we have at present as it is at least accurate and not unverifiable POV fabrication. Finneganw 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the reader should be left to make up his/her own mind is very wrong. Would you do that with any other article? Of course not. The articles need to be fact based and answer questions. We have a right and a wrong answer here. She has been PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT NOT TO BE ANASTASIA. That means her 'side' is no more valid than the Flat Earth Society's. We need to briefly state FACTS and not fall back into the old arguments that are now disproven, or even worse, encourage conspiracy theories and disbelief in the DNA. All the things Chat puts were always questionable and not verifyable, mostly the word of a few supporters. I can't understand why this is such a big issue with wikipedia. I thought you all stood for truth and facts and straightforwardness. We need to produce a short, matter of fact article stating outright and with NO room for allusion to her claim being real or any reading between the lines- she was NOT ANASTASIA and we need to educate the readers who come here looking for answers with this information.

In the external links are various viewpoints on her, from my site which totally attacks her claim as fraudulent all along to Kurth's which still tries to hang onto belief in her. All those links, much as I find some of them very silly, can stay, but it should never be under the pretense that it's leaving anyone to 'make up their own mind'- the article, as any other historical article, should inform the person well enough that their mind is made up when they finish reading it, because they have been given FACTS. That is what we need in this article, and that is what you will never get with Chat's nonsense or bookworm's mollycoddling of the AA side out of pity. The article needs reality, not games.Aggiebean (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Way forward?

Resolved

 – Consensus is to reduce the page to the lead and references for now. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed material can be seen in the archive here. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved discussion

Will the entry finally be re-written? Chopped into cat food? At least well written like normal encyclopedic entries are? I hope so. The consensus is good, but I feel a bit sorry for poor ChatNoir24...you lost the Peter Kurth campaign pal. As long as there is some reference to Kurth's fraud, what does it matter?75.21.124.148 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion was made at the Admin noticeboard that could lead to a three-point plan: 1. blank everything except the lead and the references. 2. agree on what remains 3. build up the rest of the article from there. I know 3 is very loose at the moment, but is this a conceivable way forward? DrKay (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses to 'Way Forward'

This is an excellent plan DrKay. I hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your intervention. Finneganw 11:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you moved my post without copying it back here I'll repeat my complaint as it wasn't addressed. The article is full of POV words and phrases and reads like an essay and original research rather than an encyclopedia entry. There are over 200 citations yet this problem hasn't been resolved. Stubbing and starting over is a good idea but it's not enough. I've spent the last few days reviewing this dispute and it goes back to at least 2007. This needs admin supervision and far more liberal use of sanctions. No wonder this has exhausted 2 admins already. It's 90% behavioural problem and 10% content dispute. You don't solve that by stubbing the article (though it doesn't hurt either). Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am an admin. I may be able to supervise further discussion. DrKay (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead: overall structure

Resolved

 – The lead will contain a brief sketch of her claim, her life and the DNA evidence. DrKay (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved discussion

{{{2}}}

Summary so far of what should be in the lead:

1. There is consensus that the lead should include the claim, DNA evidence and a brief description of her life.
2. It is disputed whether or not Kurth's biography is included.
3. The suggestion whether popular culture references should be included has not drawn comment.
4. The suggestion that details of Anastasia's re-burial be excluded has not drawn comment.

From this I would conclude that details of re-burial can be removed, and that a draft of a brief description of her life should be worked up. Further discussion of whether mention of Kurth's biography and popular culture references should be included in the lead may be in order. DrKay (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Keep discussion to a minimum and within the appropriate section. Do not make off-topic posts. Do not make posts which are too detailed. Do not make posts which are likely to cause offence. Do not respond to insults.

Lead: Opening statement

Current drafts are: Anastasia Manahan, usually known as Anna Anderson (26 December 1896 – 12 February 1984), was an impostor who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia, and his wife Tsarina Alexandra.

It is widely accepted that Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska, a Kashubian factory worker. Credible historians accept this identity, and major news agencies such as The Associated Press and United Press International state as a fact in their reporting that Anderson was Schanzkowska.

and:

Anastasia Manahan, usually known as Anna Anderson, was the best known of several women who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia. This claim has been conclusively been proven false through DNA testing and most now believe she was actually a Kashubian factory worker named Franziska Schanzkowska. (cite references as above.) Grand Duchess Anastasia was killed with her family on July 17, 1918 and her remains have now been identified.

Response

The first is the most accurate. The second is POV. I believe it is essential that information is quite concrete about the position of historians and major news agencies. There really is no doubt about Anderson and her real identity as Schankowska. Finneganw 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion here

Your proposed opening outlines are excellent; may I merely add here a quote from Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra: "Mrs. Anna Anderson..." That is the common name and even Massie uses it in 1967, though I am mystified as to why he titles her "Mrs. Anna Anderson" and did not write "Mrs. Anna Manahan". I think this speaks to the presentation of her many aliases.75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the entry and as it stands, I find it near perfection for the subject matter. I can't say I agree with the name--the heading ought to be Anna Anderson. Also I'd like to see something mentioned about the perpetuation of her fraud, because you don't give it the equal weight you give the modern proof against her. I'm NOT saying defend her claim, I'm saying explain a bit why she was so prominent as a fraud.75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas and Alexandra is very dated although it is a good biography if not a touch over romanticised. Finneganw 02:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to warn you, if you try to use language that "suggests" she was Franziska, you'll get howled off the talk page (not by me, by my esteemed opposition). You must state she was Franziska, and there's an end of that particular detail. Also, I do not agree that a lesser-known alias be used in the heading, or shall we say, the "chief alias". She has been known as Anna Anderson since ca. 1921.75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about what Anderson was known as for most of her life. She was however Schankowska and legally became Manahan lately in life. History knows her as Anderson and Schankowska. Finneganw 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But first, finneganw, it is NOT a POV about how she was best known throughout history. She was best known and most commonly aliased Anna Anderson. Even Massie calls her "Mrs. Anna Anderson" in 1967.76.195.82.162 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Franziska Schanzkowska

Hidden discussion

Another big bone of contention here is that a couple people refuse to allow her to be identified as Franziska, though every bit of evidence points to this identity and absolutely nothing points to her being anyone else. The only two suspects for AA's identity always were Anastasia and Franziska. DNA has completely ruled out her being Anastasia and has proven a 99.9% match with Franziska's family. Scientists who worked on the AA/FS case have stated that years later they are even more certain she was FS due to the DNA pattern being even more unique than first thought. FS's picture is a dead ringer for AA. Private investigators in the 20's fingered her as FS, and the Berlin Police dept. officially accepted that identification in 1927. FS's former landlady's daughter said she was FS, and that she had even come back to visit her saying she'd been staying with Russian emigres' who 'mistook her for someone else.' AA supporters try to discount this, but considering the DNA turned out to match, I don't think she was lying or wrong. FS's siblings at first said she was their sister, and then refused to sign papers accepting her. There is a witness that the brother only changed his story after walking with her alone for several minutes. It must be mentioned that if she were fingered as FS, she would have gone to jail for fraud, or to the mental home, and since FS had been declared insane, in Nazi Germany she'd have been sent to a death camp. There is evidence the family was afraid of being held responsible for her actions, even as late as the 1990's. There is, from what I hear, a book in the works to come out next year proving beyond any doubt she was FS. FS disappeared in the same time and place AA appeared, and there is no evidence of any life or death for FS after AA appeared. With all this on the side of her being FS, why can't we put it in the article as a fact? Major news agencies such as AP and UPI state as a fact in their reporting she was FS, as do several books we could use for sources. The case is way too strong to even leave the door open for any speculation that her identity might still be a mystery, because it isn't.Aggiebean (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article already says she was in all likelihood Franziska Schanzkowska and gives the evidence that you've cited above. What exactly are you looking for here that isn't already there? Her legal name was Anastasia Manahan and that's the name that should be used in the lead, along with Anna Anderson and her likely birth name of Franziska Schanzkowska. I'm going to add that I have spotted a number of elementary errors in the articles about the Romanovs and the Anastasia controversy that have come out in the last 15 years, so they are not completely infallible and I would not cite them. Massie's book goes over the DNA testing pretty thoroughly. That is the citation I'd be comfortable using. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am looking to get rid of the words 'likely' and 'possibly.' She WAS FS and there is not enough doubt to leave any mystery to that in the article. If we can't say she was as an outright fact, then just leave it that she is accepted as being FS for all those reasons I said above, but leave out 'definitely' or 'most likely.' I really do believe the chances she was anyone else are so astronomically small that it's not worth leaving any doubt in the article. At the very least, say all but a few diehard supporters accept the identification. Really, why is she not accepted as FS, because a few AA supporters don't want to accept they or their relatives were fooled by a poor person? Not good enough.

As for the articles, we can use the direct quote by Terry Melton from the Godl article, since it's her speaking and not a second hand quote. I also disagree with her being called Anastasia Manahan throughout the article since she didn't go by that name until she was 72. She lived most of her life as Anna Anderson.Aggiebean (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with stating the facts that she has been widely stated to be Franziska Schanzkowska by scientists, detectives and in news article reports and that only a few die-hard supporters still reject that identity. If it's a direct quote in an article from Melton, we can say Melton said such and such and use that citation. I don't think she was ever called Anna in her private life. The first name she used consistently was "Anastasia" and the surname varied. She was primarily known as Anna Anderson in the public and usually called by that alias in news articles and books, etc. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And here we go again with Aggiebeans reasoning: SHE WAS FS. Just because she says so. She is blatantly overlooking that the family never accepted her as such, that scientists found AA's face to be different from FS's. (The alleged photo of FS has never been authenticated and could be any girl.) She is also ovelooking the fact that FS disappeared several weeks after AA was found, that she had no scars, had never had a child, had no Hallux Valgus, was taller and wore shoes 3 sizes bigger than AA. She also had on her right hand ring finger a scar under her nail, causing a stiffness in the upper joint, according to her mother and her landlady. No such scar was found on AA. A close mitochondrial DNA match with someone who may be a grandson of FS's mother does not identify her as FS. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, I'm sorry, but you're not likely to get anywhere with that argument. How about this? Where else are these details cited other than in Kurth's book and on his web site? Is there another, independent source that uses the above details that are not connected to Kurth's book or the sources he used? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother, if he puts that junk the article I'm going to post things that refute it and it's going to get very long. There is no official proof of FS's height, only a few guesses by people who hadn't seen her for over a decade. There are other sources saying she was injured in the explosion and Chat claims only one that she wasn't someone allegedly saw that has never been proven or produced. (and the person who allegedly found it got very irate when some of us asked for proof) The stuff posted by Chat above is a perfect example of what needs to NOT be in the article. It is mostly rumor, means nothing against the DNA, and is exactly what causes the edit wars around here. We've heard it all a million times, Chat, it doesn't change a thing. You can't get rid of FS just because it upsets you that AA was a factory worker and not Anastasia. My gosh, the alleged 'differences' between AA and FS are one of the biggest powder kegs in this topic, and no one has yet brought it to the article. Let's not start now.(and no, Chat, it's not because I'm 'afraid' it's because she's already been proven not to be AN and to be FS 99.9% so it's pointless and only another example of what drags down the article with edit wars.)Aggiebean (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not start the edit warring or personal comments (on either side) again. Nothing can be added to the article without consensus on the talk page, including that. I haven't seen those claims anywhere other than in Kurth's book, but if they exist somewhere else, ChatNoir should find them and present it for a calm, rational discussion about whether they have any merit or are too unbelievable to include in the article. I'd guess his source is Kurth's book or the web site. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense but these posts by ChatNoir24 need to end. While everyone else are willing to start over, ChatNoir24 just keeps repeating the truth that needs no sources, just repetition. The mainstream view here is well established and he'll need some fairly extraordinary sources to refute the DNA evidence. When there's disagreement that can't be dismissed as fringe it certainly should be included in proportion to its prominence but fringe POVs don't belong here and repeating them over and over to halt progress is disruption. Your offer seems like a good idea though I doubt he'll be able to find such alternative sources but this really is the final chance. It's not like he hasn't been warned. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

He isn't going to find a source other than Kurth (who can't give up on AA) and all other sources are going to say that she has been proven to be FS. It really doesn't matter what anyone says about shoes when we have DNA. A lot of criminals have been freed from prison after DNA proved they weren't guilty, though testimony and eyewitnesses and a jury had them convicted. DNA is the final proof. Please understand that we have been through all this many many times in several places over the years, and all he does is go in circles listing why he thinks AA was Anastasia, what she 'remembered', this person said this, and why she can't be FS, while the whole time all evidence proves she was FS and not Anastasia. This is why he has no business in the article. He is too set in his own disproven belief, and too emotionally attached to the story to let it go.Aggiebean (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

These details are cited in the reports of Mr. Völler, a lawyer who picked up Felix Schanzkowsky from his work in Ammendorf, near Halle, to bring him to his confrontation with Anna Anderson. On the way from Ammendorf, Felix, from looking at photos of AA, hotly disputed that the lady in question was his sister, although he did see a certain likeness with one picture, the one at the beginning of this article. But "the mouth was wrong, Franzisca never had a mouth like that." He also denied that FS had any scars on her body or Hallux Valgus. This was later confirmed by the mother and sister of FS to Mr. Shuricht, a private detective hired by Frau Rathlef. When Doris Wingender was given her contract from die Nachtausgabe, she was to be paid DM1500.00 for identifying AA as FS, and also produce some of FS's workbooks and her "Abmeldung" from early in the year when she left Berlin to plant asparagus on a farm, and also the "Abmeldung" from March 9th, when she supposedly disappeared. According to Felix, the Schanzkowski family got a letter "sometime in March" from Frau Wingender, saying that Franzisca had disappeared. Upon contacting the Berlin Police, they were told that Franzisca had not left an "Abmeldung", so her disappearance may have been several weeks later than Doris Wingender made us believe. Also, Felix told Völler that the last mail he had from Franzisca, was a birthday card that arrived between 8 and 14 days late, he could no longer say with certainty. His birthday was 2/17. To be honest, I am not looking to get anywhere with my arguments, we have people here who favor censorship. But I do like to set the record straight anyway. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem again is your idea of 'setting the record straight' is digging up a bunch of old stories and hearsay that are probably not even true and cannot be proven, and even so don't mean anything anymore. Your version is not the right one and not what we need for the article. If people like that version they can still read Kurth's book, but it's never going to change reality. Just because Doris was paid doesn't mean she lied. A lot of people get money for stories in tabloids. Larry Birkhead got rich that way. Doris saw Rathlef's saga on AA in the paper, went down to the paper office and said "I have some information on your 'Anastasia.' Naturally, a poor woman who suddenly discovers she has the key to the biggest mystery in town would feel it was worth something financially to the newspaper and she should profit from it. It's like someone charging you ten bucks for directions out of town when you're lost. It does not taint her story. Anyway, again, all this is exactly what needs to be eliminated from the article-and quite honestly, the talk page a well, if we are going to get anywhere on fixing the article.Aggiebean (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And what do you call presenting false evidence in court? I call it lying. And Doris did not read Frau Rathlef's story in Die Nachtausgabe, she found a blurb in the Berlin Magazine Die Woche, a photo that was little more than a smudge of ink. As judge Bähte said: "From that you could recognize anybody or nobodyChatNoir24 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well now Chat if you want to get into people lying in court, there are several AA supporters who are more than guilty of that. (proven by the fact she wasn't really Anastasia) We can start with Heinrich Kleibetzl and go forward into numerous others. Again, we do NOT NOT NOT need to rehash the extraneous details of the case here on EITHER side. That is the very thing we are trying to get away from in reworking the article!Aggiebean (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about Anastasia here, I am talking about Franzisca Schanzkowska.ChatNoir24 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat you continue to push your same old tired, disproved and inaccurate highly POV agenda. You have no place editing here as you have no interest whatsoever in understanding basic historical and scientifc fact. It is quite clear you are just here to stir up trouble. Finneganw 01:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, how do we present Franziska Schanskowska? What I mean is, she's Anna Anderson but no one really knows what happened to her former self as Franziska... do you follow me? If there is no source other than Kurth, what then? After all, we are calling her Schanzkowska, but what about a detail or line about Schanskowska in general? How did she "vanish" only to "become" Anna? Is that a fair idea to include? Am I being confusing?75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not confusing at all and it's an interesting question but I think you're moving a bit too fast now. Let's see what the others think about the proposed outline of the lead and then we'll return to this question. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good and fair, Vyvyan. You and DrKay have accomplished here what couldn't be done for the last 3 years or so. I wasn't even here back then!75.21.155.47 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Schankowska never really disappeared. She just became submerged in the bizarre new identity of Anderson. That has been proved by DNA testing. Finneganw 02:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If we can't agree on using either "she was FS" or "she was probably FS", is there another formula which could be agreed? Say one that deosn't say she was or probably was, but does state the evidence and facts clearly:

In 1927, based on information from a private investigation, the Berlin Police identified Anderson with Franziska Schanzkowska, a Kashubian factory worker. A decade after Anderson's death, it was discovered that mitochondrial DNA from a surviving medical specimen matched the mitochondrial DNA profile of Karl Maucher, a great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska. Today, historians and news agencies accept that Anderson was Schanzkowska. DrKay (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To say that the Berlin police accepted the identification as AA being FS, is a bit of an overstatement. One solitary soul, a prominent member of the Nazi party, wrote to Darmstadt and confirmed that the indentity of FS was now clear to the police. But the police, although they regarded the case as closed, knew nothing more about it than anyone else. The same thing was the case with the police in Darmstadt: "We did not establish the identity", they explained. It was Martin Knopf who informed the police that AA's identity with FS had been established beyond all doubt. In the end, the Bavarian police renewed AA's identity certificate under the name of Tschaikowski, refusing to give in to repeated requests from Darmstadt that she be expelled or arrested for fraud.ChatNoir24 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Chat you have no problem with Nazis if they do something you like, such as Reche and Eikstadt. No one fought the identification, and it was made official in their records. This ID was verified later by DNA results.Aggiebean (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I really have no problems with what political party people belong to, I just thought you would like it pointed out since you are so diligent in doing it yourself. Who is Eikstadt? Or do you mean Eyckstedt? As for Kurth's blatantly false information, see NOVA where Dr. Vanezis confirms the likeness of the ears of AA and AN. The same thing was done in 1977 by Dr. Moritz Furtmayr. As for Dr. Oxley, according to Klier and Mingay, he stated that "she probably was FS". He had no chance to see the face en profile or check out the ears. ChatNoir24 (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's because I own a copy of the NOVA episode that I know the info is blatantly false. I hate to elongate the page arguing with you, but this is necessary since it was once an issue in the article. Page 209 of the paperback version of "Tsar" states:

"In 1994 at the very moment the DNA experts concluded Anderson was not the Tsar's daughter, new forensic comparisons of her face and ears with the young Anastasia commissioned for a TV documentary in England and following routine procedures of legal identification reached exactly the opposite conclusion. The experiment was later successfully repeated by specialists in the US and their conclusions, too, were delivered with 'certainty'- Anna Anderson was Anastasia."

Chat, this is false information. The show in question was Channel Four's "Mystery of Anastasia" which ran later in the US as "Anastasia Dead or Alive" on NOVA. In the program, the ears were compared using grainy, shadowy black and white photos, and they got a 4 out of 5 match. They didn't give it a 5 because they couldn't test other angles. NO ONE ever said this meant she was Anastasia, and Vanezis never said anything about 'with certainty' as claimed. Additionally, two other bits of info are completely false, one that the facial exams gave her a match with Anastasia, in fact, noted British forensic facial comparison expert Geoffrey Oxlee compared AA and FS and found them a match on all points- he used a computer, much higher tech than the paper and rulers used in the past. Most false of all was that the tests were redone in the US with the same results, the tests were not repeated in the US or anywhere else. The info stands as false. I will not speculate on how such false info came to be put in the book.Aggiebean (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the result of the German tests done by Professors Eyckstedt, Klenke, Reche and Furtmayr all showed that the face of AA was identical with that of AN. And the only person discredited in that case was Otto Reche's opponent in court, Dr. Clauberg, who was unanimously refused by the Anthropological Society for inclusion on its list of expert witnesses for the courts. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

None of their tests were ever accepted by the courts, all the way up to to the 60's, the judges threw them out.Reche and Eickstedt were indeed involved in horrible Nazi race eugenics and were later discredited by their peers. More modern facial tests by Oxlee found her a match with Franziska, as did the DNA.Aggiebean (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the Nazis fit in with an identification from 1927. The Nazis were a very small party then (German election, 1928). The reference given for the 1927 identification in the old version of the article is "Lost Fortune of the Tsars" by William Clarke, p. 134, from Berlin police records, signed by Heinz Drescher. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Other imposters

• I think it is worthwhile to note that there were other fraudsters claiming to be Anastasia as well. Finneganw 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• we cannot ignore the phony Anastasias who cropped up like Brussels sprouts, and that Franziska was the most famous. 75.21.124.148 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd probably add "...was the best known of several women who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia." --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks to me like consensus that the words "best known of several" or similar should be added to the lead. DrKay (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"most famous of several" added. DrKay (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• There was no consensus reached here. Bookworm pushed for most famous. Others stated there were others. That is hardly the same thing as saying Anderson was the most famous. Perhaps one should write she was the most discredited as that is far more true. The others didn't have the shame of DNA testing to expose them. Finneganw 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for "most famous" include Coble et al.: "most famous claimant", Godl: "worlds most famous Romanov claimant". and Anna Eunike Röhrig [in German] (2007), Klug, schön und gefährlich: Die 100 berühmtesten Frauen der Weltgeschichte, Munich: C. H. Beck, p. 11, ISBN 978-3-406-54792-8 (the title translates as "Wise, beautiful and dangerous: The 100 most famous women in world history"). I can't find any sources for "most discredited". DrKay (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead: Claim

Current section something like: Claims that Anderson was the Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia first surfaced in the 1920s. Anastasia, who was born on 5 June 1901, was murdered with her family on the night of July 17, 1918, by Bolsheviks in Ekaterinburg, Russia. Hardly any relatives of Grand Duchess Anastasia believed the claim. As early as the 1920s, a private detective investigation tried to identify Anderson as Schanzkowska, who was born on 26 December 1896, in Pomerania (then in Prussia but now in Poland). In 1927, based on information from that investigation, the Berlin Police officially accepted the identification of the "Unknown" as Schanzkowska.

It is proposed that mention of the lawsuit be included. For now, we just need to decide whether the lawsuit be included as a topic. We do not need to discuss anything else or the details. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is important to mention Anderson's birth date and not have any assumption made that it was the same as Anastasia's. 'Hardly any' is not really correct. The 'vast majority' is more correct when it comes to those who did not believe Anderson among the Romanov family. Finneganw 09:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Schanzkowska's birth date 16 or 26 December? Different sources seem to say different dates. Is her birthplace Borowihlas, and is this the German for Borowy Las? DrKay (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find any sources for the 26th. Kurth quotes Penny Wilson saying 22 December here and it is given as 16 December 1896 by Anna Eunike Röhrig [in German] (2007), Klug, schön und gefährlich: Die 100 berühmtesten Frauen der Weltgeschichte, Munich: C. H. Beck, p. 11, ISBN 978-3-406-54792-8 and Godl, John (25 March 2000), Remembering Anna Anderson, Boise, Idaho: Archimandrite Nektarios Serfes, retrieved 29 June 2009 (but he gets the death day wrong).

If there is confusion or uncertainty over the day, we could just say "December 1896" and leave off the date. DrKay (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the birthdate of 26th came from, it was already on there when I got here. This is the Berlin police record accepting her as FS, it says the 16th:

"According to the material we have from the Haus-und-Vermoegensverwalten of the former Grand Duke of Hesse, and from various notices in the press, the alleged Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, is, in reality, Franziska Schanzkowska, born on 16.12.96 in Borowihlas, and this is supposedly proved definitively." (Lost Fortune of the Tsars)

Hess. Polizeiamten Darmstadt, 20.5.27 "Erkennungsdienst" [Identification Service] "Referring to the so-called Anastasia of Russia" "From the Berlin daily report ["Tagesbericht"] No. 32 of 20.4.27 it is signed and signified officially as established that the identity of the `Unbekannte' has been completely assured as being that of Franziska Schanzkowska by the `Kriminalzentrale' of Darmstadt. "All of this has been taken up and accepted by the police of Berlin. One thing to consider is calendars were a little different back then, the Russian one was off by several days, but I don't think the German one was. As for where she was born, it's like this, she was born in what was at the time of her birth German (Prussian) territory taken over by war, but was historically and ethnically Polish land and she was ethnically Kashoub Polish. It was in the province of Pomerania. So while borders may call it "Germany" it was always technically Poland/Polish land and she was Polish.Aggiebean (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the copy of Franzisca's "Polizeiliche Hinmeldung" from 1919, you will find her birth date listed as November 16, 1896. Her Statsangehörigkeit (nationality) is listed as Preussen. No Polish here. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So it's November then? Can you provide a source for this please? I presume you don't have the original document. DrKay (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removals

Resolved

 – Anastasia's birth date removed. DrKay 08:26, 22 June 2009

Resolved discussion

Can we remove Anastasia's birth date in the same way as we intend to remove Anastasia's re-burial? DrKay (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree that Anastasia details be removed. We don't want anyone to think Anna was Anastasia!76.195.82.162 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit?

Resolved

 – Sentence on the lawsuit added. DrKay (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved discussion

Recommendation: specify lawsuit's nature and date(s). No more. I.e., state it in language that would in the modern world be cited in another lawsuit.75.21.155.47 (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit - the main point to be stressed with the lawsuit that went for decades is that the court came down with the ruling that Anderson had failed to prove that she was Anastasia. Finneganw 09:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with finneganw's exact phrasing above, which will then require only one source, probably already cited.76.195.82.162 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that the lawsuit began when AA allegedly told someone that her 'father' (The Tsar) had told her ("Anastasia") that he had deposited millions of rubles in the Bank of England in the names of all four Grand Duchesses. This is basically what set off the trial,(along with the family trying to have all the Tsar's immediate family declared legally dead) while Chat will say she only wanted her 'name' it was clearly about the money. I do think, if we're getting into the lawsuit at all, that this should be mentioned. The alleged Romanov fortune was what caused so many to fight so hard for so long. (though of course in the end it didn't exist.) Aggiebean (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one would like to see this as un-detailed as possible, and aggiebean had better have the sources to back up proposed wording as used in the above. Or else, re-do the proposal.76.195.82.162 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Aggiebean is quite correct that the whole basis for the trial that extended for decades was money. Anderson's supporters thought there was money they could get by using her hence the trial. Of course there was no money otherwise the Romanovs would not have had to rely on King George V for a pension for the Dowager Empress and a Grace and Favour residence for Xenia. Hvidore was part owned by Queen Alexandra and the Dowager Empress. The British decided to not ask for their half of the house when the Dowager Empress died. They also bought jewels from that the Dowager Empress had kept on her death. There was no money but supporters had Granador and of course supporters such as Rathlef, Botkin and later Kurth made monies out of using Anderson and Anderson lived off others for most of her life. Finneganw 02:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We need a draft sentence that can be inserted in the lead. It should be a brief, all-encompassing single sentence, such as "John Doe was convicted of murder in 1932 after a ten-day trial." or "Mrs Smith sued for libel in 1986 but after lengthy court proceedings the case was thrown out."

One suggestion above was along the lines of "After a lawsuit that went on for decades, the German courts ruled that Anderson had failed to prove that she was Anastasia." but Aggie wanted to add the reason for the suit. I think we would need a cite for that, and agreement on the sentence. DrKay (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no consensus to add the reason(s) for the lawsuit (see #Getting back on track), and no objections to the proposed wording. Unless there are further suggestions, then I'll close this as resolved that the sentence on the lawsuit be included in the lead, and that it be phrased loosely as given above. DrKay (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead: Life

Resolved

 – Draft at Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle. DrKay (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved discussion

Which aspects of her life should be included? Remember this is the lead only. We need a very brief sketch and no details. Lengthy or off-topic posts should be ignored. Do not respond to detailed points. Do not try to deal with too many specific points at once, and do not respond to posts which repeat the same points again and again. You need to break out of the cycle by just ignoring off-topic or clearly disputed posts which repeat the same arguments that you've heard countless times before. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I say we do not go into "aspects of her life". Biographical truth only. Or else define "aspects".75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant biography. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Then biography it is... well, she floated around Berlin, came to the U.S., returned to Europe, fought in the courts to claim an identity, finally moved to America for good, got married, got old, got crazier, and died in 1984. Thus far, I think that is the template we use, and pick it up from there. And for now, as Vyvyan says, leave Kurth out of it. But I do say put him back in properly at a later date... something I've tried to argue all along.75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We need a very brief draft which outlines her life in sketch form. Any volunteers? DrKay (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead: Kurth

Resolved

 – The consensus is not to mention Kurth in the lead. DrKay (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved discussion

Should Kurth be mentioned? Note Kurth is a living person. WP:BLP applies. If accusations of fraud can not be substantiated then they must not be made. Indeed, such allegations may be blanked and any previous posts refactored if the claim cannot be verified by a reliable source who uses the term. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

With due respect you're stretching BLP policy here. Kurth was far too involved with Anna to be considered a reliable source per our own standards. We don't need to source that. The onus is on those who want to use the book to prove that these claims of his appear outside his own book in reliable independent sources. To use BLP policy to circumvent that requirement is gaming and I for one will not allow anyone to use BLP policy to game WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. If we can't agree on this then he shouldn't be mentioned or used as a source at all. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not gaming. You have misread my comment. I never said anything about whether the book should be used as a source. I want a discussion of whether he should be mentioned in the lead only. There's nothing controversial about saying "Peter Kurth wrote a book about her." The question is should such a statement appear in the lead or not? You've said, No. Others say, Yes. I am trying to resolve that question only, not anything else. DrKay (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've struck the part about gaming. However, the rest of my comment stands. I think we should remove Kurth from the equation and move forward with the rest of the lead. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The information in Kurth's book has been proved to be grossly inaccurate by extensive DNA testing by eminent scientists. His whole work pushed Anderson to be Anastasia. That is completely inaccurate and disproven. That is why it is classified as unable to be used as the information it contains is unverifiable. Finneganw 10:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vyvyan may be right about mentioning or singling out Kurth. However, if something, or anything, is unique to Kurth and belongs in the entry, Kurth must be cited. If not, then I agree he not be cited at all. Note I am not defending him either way... only the 1983 book. I see it's the book and not Kurth we are rolling around here, so now, what do we do? Stretch BLP for the sake of the article? Was Kurth "far too involved" to meet your standards, when he wrote his book in 1983? Can't we simply say that in the article, "he was too involved with Anna to be considered reliable"? What a conundrum.75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurth should not be used as all as his work is completely unverifiable and disproven. Finneganw 10:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with all of the above, and thank DrKay for this momentous accomplishment. It will need work, and I'm as sorry as anyone about the Kurth question. I really wanted some kind of true exposure of Kurth's role in the fraud, but we must respect the living person as you said. It's too bad, aggiebean is fundamentally right about Kurth but not about the role he has played. 75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask: were we arguing about mentioning Kurth, or was it about how to mention him? I'd never thought about your reference to the rule about living persons. How much substantial material exists ex-Kurth to build up the entry properly? Can we do it without Kurth? It seems he cannot go without mention, yet he is clearly perpetuating fraud. He's doing it as a living person now. I ask this as an honest query... all the most detailed nonsense comes to us from Kurth's book. It helps show that Kurth perpetuated lies etc. Can we ignore that?75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that we cannot agree how to use Kurth's book in the article so let's leave it out completely for now. We cannot label it as fraud without a significant amount of very reliable independent sources who uses the same word about the same exact parts of his book. We're unlikely to find such sources. On the other hand, he was far too involved with her to serve as a reliable source. The solution is to remove Kurth's book from the equation for now so we can move forward with the things we do agree on. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Kurth is completely unreliable and unverifiable. His whole thesis about Anderson being Anastasia has been completely disproven. It is fact Anderson was never Anastasia. That is 100% proven - therefore exit Kurth for trying to push an incorrect identity. Finneganw 10:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK by me.75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft lead

At Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle. If you approve of the draft then say so. If you don't then suggest improvements here. See Wikipedia:Lead section for guidance on lead sections. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth and as long as this post remains undeleted, I agree with that proposed article 100%. It is excellent and cuts the crap. Appropriate details can be added as needed. So dear Kay, don't expect it to last!

I only have two problems with it, one is that there is no mention of the final DNA reports, but I assume this will be put in a later section? The other problem I have is the 'year or two' for her claim surfacing. This is indefinite sounding and really, wrong. The facts prove her claim began in the spring of 1922 when fellow mental patient showed her the pictures of the family and said she looked like Tatiana, and all the people started coming and the attention started. There is nothing whatsoever to back up the very unverifyable and honestly quite ridiculous claim by supporters that she 'came out' in 1921. This was only a pathetic attempt later by Rathlef and one nurse to make it look like she had said she was Anastasia before she was said to be Tatiana to boost her claim. After all a claim starting with the rants of an insane woman (Clara P) does not sound too solid. The details of it make no sense compared to the rest of the story. (I can elaborate quite a bit, but won't unless you request due to space) We should give NO absolutely NO validation in a factual article even being ambiguous as there is no reason to appease Chat. The FACTS prove the claim began with the "Tatiana" story.Aggiebean (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The DNA reports are reference 2. They certainly should also be mentioned in the future "DNA evidence" section.

Can you suggest an alternative wording that gets around the 1921/22 argument? Originally, I had "in the 1920s" rather than "a year or two" but I thought "1920s" looked repetitive beside "1920". How about "early years of that decade" or "soon after the suicide attempt"? DrKay (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Aggiebean is quite correct in what she says. 'Soon after' is not very good. I believe something like 'after a time as a patient in a mental hospital' is probably better. This is a woman who was not considered sane and was kept for a considerable period in protective custody. There is no verifiable year in which her fraud commenced. Certainly she has no connection with the Romanovs. One look at her and that becomes very obvious. She looks absolutely nothing like Anastasia. She associated with other insane people such as Clara P. She first claim to be Tatiana. The whole story changed as often as the wind. That is why it is crucual from the very beginning of the article to state quite categorically that she was never who she claimed to be and this has been well and truly proven. She was used by unscrupulous people in an effort to gain money. It is as simple as that. Finneganw 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"After a time" or 'after awhile' is better, but honestly, all records of the claim began in the spring of 1922 when Clara P. told her she thought she was Tatiana. She never denied being Tatiana until one of Alexandra's friends denounced her and said she was 'too short to be Tatiana', at which point she switched to Anastasia, the only Grand Duchess who shared her height. Convenient, eh? The whole nurse story is clearly bogus, as in it she allegedly gave, in 1921, a long winded detailed account of the night the Romanovs were murdered, yet this same woman didn't know a thing about them until Clara showed her to magazines the next year, and did not even have any 'memories' until years later, and as late as 1925 she still being coached by Rathlef in even the most simple things (portrayed in Kurth's book as 'helping bring back her memory, but we know now that wasn't true) There is NO proof she ever said she was Anastasia or anyone else before the 1922 Peuthert incident, and the story, made up by supporters to help her, should not be given any consideration even in vaguely worded language. We do not have to appease the AA supporters. The claim began with the mental patient calling her Tatiana. We do have proof that is when the story broke and it all started. There is no official record of anything before that.Aggiebean (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you've hit on something we might be able to use: you said "that's when the story broke". If the date of the story breaking is uncontested, then we could use that as the date. DrKay (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand the fear of Thea Malinovsky's testimony. She told her story under oath to Edward Fallows, and the document is on file at Houghton Library. Her testimony was also backed up by Dr. Chemnitz. The unknown woman also told other nurses that she was Anastasia before the visit of Baroness von Buxhoeveden, so it is rather clear that she had no story to change. Is Wikipedia really going to be held hostage by two people who have rather limited knowledge of the Anna Anderson story and prefer untruths to the verified facts? ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Even Anderson said she couldn't remember telling Mrs Chemnitz that she was Anastasia, but anyway, that's beside the point. The question we want answering is: Are you OK with the wording? DrKay (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as long as there is no statement saying that "she switched her story". ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I know there's no source called 'common sense', but really, hiding under the sheets and not denying being Tatiana until someone says you're too short is a far cry from having told people you were Anastasia. It also makes no sense she was said to have told a whole long story then later didn't remember a thing. Considering she WASN'T Anastasia, and she didn't find out the info about her until helped by others later, really proves by logical deduction the nurse story is false. I am not 'afraid' of it, as Chat claims (he still holds the illusion we are all 'afraid' because she was the real Anastasia and we're covering it up and that's why we're 'suppressing' 'facts', I've been through this for years and know this is what he means, so he needn't even deny it) It is very obvious there was no claim at all until Peuthert said she was Tatiana. AA/FS did not seem to even know diddly about the family until after that. I will try to find a source for the day the story broke. And yes, the story did switch, many times, and there is documentation.Aggiebean (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read up on the case, you will find that Fräulein Unbekannt NEVER admitted to anybody except those she trusted, whom she was supposed to be. When examined by a doctor at the Mary Hospital, she ran crying out of the room when the doctor mentioned that her grandmother was the Empress Dagmar. Even in the 30's she would use all kinds of aliases and run away when someone "recognized" her.ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read plenty, much more than most people, and the more I see, the more I'm sure she knew she was a fraud all along. Like those stories from Kurth's book where she allegedly plucked her hairline and pulled her teeth to keep the Bolsheviks from recognizing her and taking her away, clearly she was disguising her appearance because she knew she didn't look much like Anastasia. You have to realize, Chat, these episodes weren't because she was Anastasia, it was because she knew she wasn't and was afraid of being found out.Aggiebean (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Darn it, all this is PROVED! Can't you guys get with the program Kay wants? She was a fraud, don't batter the stupid article with every mental hospital stay, and don't beat a dead horse with old and fraudulent forensics that say she was Anastasia. A bunch of children!

If she did not look at all like Anastasia, how come that every serious anthropological study came out in her favor? How come so many people recognized her as the Grand Duchess, even members of her own family? How come that she looks like Anastasia in photos? No matter who she was, she was a carbon copy of the Tsar's daughter, right down to the scars on her body and the congenital bilateral Hallux Valgus. A very lucky impostor, indeed.ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Again, this is nonsense. Provide authorities who published on her, or else stop clogging the discussion.

Response to draft lead - amended

Anna Anderson (16 December 1896 – 12 February 1984), was one of several impostors who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia.[2][3][4]. Anastasia, the youngest daughter of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia, Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna, was murdered with her family and attendants on 17 July 1918 by Bolsheviks in Ekaterinburg, Russia. The remains of all seven members of the Imperial family have been identified through extensive DNA testing, and the results have been independently verified by multiple respected laboratories in different countries.[2]

In 1920, Anderson was placed as a patient in a mental hospital after a suicide attempt in Berlin. At first, she went by the name Fräulein Unbekannt (German for Miss Unknown) after consistently refusing to reveal her identity. Later she adopted the name Tschiakovsky and then Anderson. The fraudulent claims that Anderson was Anastasia surfaced after a time in protective custody. The vast majority of the surviving Romanov family and those who had closely known her, including court tutor Pierre Gilliard, stated Anderson was not the Grand Duchess Anastasia. In 1927, based on information from a private investigation, the Berlin Police identified Anderson as Franziska Schanzkowska, a Kashubian factory worker born on 16 December 1896 in Pomerania (then in Prussia (part of the German Empire) but now in Poland).[5] After a lawsuit lasting many decades, German courts ruled that Anderson had failed to prove she was Anastasia. Sensational media coverage gained Anderson notoriety.

Anderson lived in the United States for a time where yet again signs of mental illness surfaced and she was placed under judicial order in an asylum. Eventually she returned to Germany, where she lived during World War II. In 1968, shortly before the expiry of her United States visa, Anderson married "Jack" Manahan, a much younger eccentric history professor.[1] Prior to her death she once was again placed in a mental hospital where she died in 1984. Anderson's body was cremated, and her ashes were buried in the churchyard at Castle Seeon, Germany.[6] Ten years later, DNA tests were conducted on a lock of her hair and samples of her tissue that had been stored at a Charlottesville, Virginia hospital following a medical procedure. The DNA tests showed categorically that Anderson's DNA did not match in any way the Romanov remains or living relatives of the Romanovs such as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (a grand-nephew of Alexandra Feodorovna).[7][8] Anderson's mitochondrial DNA matched the mitochondrial DNA profile of Karl Maucher, a great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska.[8] Four years after the original testing was done, the DNA sequence tying Anderson to the Schanzkowska family was still unique though the database of DNA patterns had grown much larger, leading to increased confidence she was Franziska Schanzkowsa.[9] Eminent scientists,[2] historians,[3][7] and major news organisations[10][11] accept that Anderson was Schanzkowska.

• • I think this is more accurate. Anderson was not famous. Fame is associated with people who do something worthwhile. She gained notoriety, but that is hardly fame. She upset, insulted and slandered many people. She was sadly an in-patient in numerous mental hospitals for extended periods.Finneganw 12:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, I've already provided three reliable references for "most famous", besides which it's obvious. We've all heard of Anderson, no-one's heard of the others. We cannot take their own word that they are "respected": we need independent, secondary sources for that, so that reference won't do for that term.

In the second paragraph, we need references for "refused" as she could have been amnesiac. The term "protective custody" is loaded. "notoriety" requires a reference, and a balancing sentence if notoriety is disputed.

In the third paragraph, "placed in a mental hospital" is loaded. It is not unusual for 80-odd-year olds to become confused and senile and require institutionalisation. "Eminent" requires independent, third-party references. I've actually also seen that I feel uncomfortable using "historians", because none of those three people have a professional qualification or an academic position in history. We need better references to claim that, maybe Massie and Klier, who are historians, if they accept Anderson was Schanzkowska. DrKay (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think 'famous' is quite wrong. If you wish to persist with this you should use well-known as nothing Anderson did was famous. I suggest you look up the word famous and notorious in a dictionary and you will realise she was notorious and not at all famous. Anderson never did anything famous. Stealing an identity of a dead person is actually considered criminal and fraud. Other pretenders were known and are documented in books. There are even photos of them available. It is also fact that she was placed in mental asylums. In New York a judge ordered her to be committed. It is also rather ridiculous to claim you need to have academic qualifications to be an historian. That is an extremely narrow minded viewpoint. There are many academics who write rubbish who would be classified as historians. There also many highly respected books written by historians who never went to university. The concept of somebody being an historian because of academic qualificaitions is a modern one only. By the way having a wikipedia article does not mean you are famous. It just means somebody has bothered to put one on the site. Those who carried out the DNA tests are considered eminent in their fields. Your version is too sugar coated and runs away from reality DrKay. Finneganw 00:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to avoid or sugar coat the fact that the woman spent a great deal of time in mental institutions, it all goes in with her character as she was pretending to be a dead princess. These are facts of her life. It would also be interesting to tell that her husband abducted her from one facility and spent days on the run with police in pursuit due to the fact he was afraid she'd be committed. This is how her life ended, her own true story, not Anastasia's. She was indeed put in a mental home after her suicide attempt, and her claim began when a fellow mental patient, looking at Romamov magazines, told her she looked like Tatiana. (though AA supporters try desperately to deny this, that is what happened) She had also been in other mental homes at various other times throughout her life, such as in the early 30's in NY when she went on a rampage at the home of the Standard Oil heiress and ran naked across the rooftop tossing objects at people below. Yes, we have a reference for this too. It is also interesting to note that FS was declared mentally insane in 1916. While Anderson supporters will deny AA was ever insane, sane people do not spend that much time in mental institutions. I also think it's quite picky to need a reference for 'eminent' scientists and historians, their names alone should show this as they are all famous and respected. The fact is, EVERYBODY except Peter Kurth and a few conspiracy theorists accept the results and identity, and a sensible, factual article need not owe anything to appease them.Aggiebean (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your outline is far too detailed for the lead. Ordinarily, all the stays in institutions would concertina into a single sentence such as "She was committed to asylums on several occasions.", and there would be no specific examples given. The detail would be given in the body of the article. If these "eminent" people really were "famous" we'd have wikipedia articles about them. Except for John Van der Kiste, who I have heard of, they haven't; nor had I heard of any of them, except Van der Kiste, before now. There is a related guideline on this: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. As for "historians", this should be easy to address by providing reliable sources that say that historians accept she was Schanzkowska. If there aren't any, then we can't say it. DrKay (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There may not be a book saying the names of who accepts her, but no one denies it but Kurth and the wackjob crew of AA supporters and conspiracy theorists. There is NO controversy! Actually, it's such a widely accepted piece of reality, nobody ever stated in a book 'this person believes she was FS' because it is just something that's true that we now know. We do have proof, in the form of written articles, that AP and UPI accept the id and state it as fact in their reporting. They couldn't do that if it weren't a sure thing.We can state that the author of "Seven Daughters of Eve" accepts it,(Brian Sykes, p.75) and probably Massie, though maybe not in so many words, it's obvious from reading his book "Final Chapter" that he does and is spreading that fact to his readers. Aggiebean (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A few things here: Anna Anderson never adopted the name Anderson, it was a pseudonym "picked out of a hat" by Hattie Richards upon checking into the Garden City Hotel in order to avoid the press. It was later used in her false passport when she was returned to Germany, and somehow it stuck with her in the press. The Berlin police never identified AA as Franzisca Schanzkowska, neither did the Darmstadt police. The identification was dictated by Martin Knopf through his employer, the Grand Duke of Hesse. Her placement in asylums were never on account of mental illness. She was sent to Dalldorf in March 1920 simply because the police had no idea what else to do with her. The diagnosis was depression. In New York, the Jennings family bribed 3 doctors in order to have her committed to Four Winds Sanatorium. The diagnosis at the sanatorium was that she needed rest for her nerves. Upon arriving at Ilten Sanatorium in Germany, she was at once told that she was free to go, there was nothing mentally wrong with her. In her last days in America, she was admitted to a psychiatric ward at the Blue Ridge Hospital where she was evaluated for mental illness. Having found no evidence of this, she was transferred to the University of Virginia Medical Center. ChatNoir24 (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A source for the Berlin police identification has been provided. What is your source that they didn't? DrKay (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A source for the Berlin police identification has not been provided. The only thing provided, was a confirmation to the Duke of Hesse that they accepted the identification made by Knopf. Private detective Shuricht, who went to the Berlin police headquarters, was told that the case was closed, but the police did not know anything more about it than he did. Neither did the Darmstadt police, who stated that they did not do the identification. If the police really had identified AA as FS, she would have been arrested for fraud or sent to an institution. None of this happened, she kept her identity certificate as Anastasia Tschaikowsky, and upon returning to Germany, she was left alone by the police. In May, 1927, Gleb Botkin, Dr. Völler and an officer from the Berlin Criminal Police interviewed Doris Wingender under the pretext of being journalists. The Berlin police told Botkin that if he was willing to make a complaint, they would have miss Wingender arrested for perjury and entering a fraudulent agreement. (Protocols of the Berlin Police, May 19th and May 21st, 1927) The duke of Leuchtenberg and others, however, begged Botkin not to do so. It was the Grand Duke of Hesse they wanted to bring to court. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Chat, what they wrote was made a part of Berlin Police record. If they didn't accept Darmstadt's results, they wouldn't have signed off on it, therefore it stands. The Berlin Police accepted the identity of AA as FS. You may say 'then why didn't they arrest her' but that doesn't change the fact that we have a source stating they did accept it.

One more tiny beef- the Terry Melton quote was five years after the testing, not four, and as a matter of fact I talked to her last year myself and she still holds this belief and even more strongly (though I know you won't use my original research as a source) Aggiebean (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The source says four years. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The article says she checked the database again and gives the date as 1999, that is 5 years from 1994.Aggiebean (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you read what I wrote, you will see that I agree on the acceptance of the "identifidation" made by Knopf.ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you fighting it?Aggiebean (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Chat is a rabid Anderson supporter and that has been extremely obvious for many years. He can't see reality and doesn't understand the meaning of verifiable fact. Finneganw 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lead and responses

I've amended the text of the proposed lead to incorporate some of Finneganw's suggestions, ChatNoir's objections, and Aggiebean's concerns. I don't see any hope of agreement on the other points, so it's best to leave them out. It is not possible for everyone to get everything they want, but I still believe that a version that everyone will accept is possible. Please indicate whether the new proposed lead is tolerable. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot accept the word 'famous' as she was not. She was infamous. There is a huge difference. To be famous means she has done something worthwhile and is of value to mankind. She was notorious. That is what happens when you attract attention for doing things or something that is not noteworthy or is infamous. Perhaps infamous is the word to use with her. Paris Hilton is infamous and notorious. She is only famous in her own mind. The same applies to Anderson. Anderson attempted for most of her life to pass herself off as somebody she never was. She also associated herself with those who colluded with her agenda. That is not fame, that is infamy. Finneganw 11:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think the existing lead is far better than the proposed one. I have made my views known in the amended version. I think more thought needs to go into the proposed lead as it is not neutral when using a word such as 'famous'. That is extremely POV and inaccurate. The book you used with the german title lists 'dangerous' people as being famous. I tend to think that is a very loose connection. It also uses the german word for clever. That is something Anderson never was. She was cunning but that is hardly the same thing at all. That is why infamous is what should be used. Finneganw 11:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The amended one is better, though not what I'd really want. I agree we can't say she was clever or cunning, because we don't even know if she actually came up with any of the plans of the claim or if it was supporters using her. Personally I believe she just went along for the ride and enjoyed being taken care of, didn't want the publicity and was afraid the more she got the easier she'd be found out. I do think the way it's described briefly and generic-ly is much better than digging into minute and extraneous details which will only cause more argument. Basics is best, and that's what you have. I hope this is it for the story of her life?Aggiebean (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Amended. DrKay (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to say I don't currently have any more complaints. I will accept this as it stands now.Aggiebean (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see you changed the part about her story surfacing again, therefore I do have another complaint after all. How just putting after the part about her being put in the asylum that was where her claim began? Oh, nad you asked for a date, it was in January 1922 that Clara P. left the asylum and started contacting Russian emigres to come see "Tatiana."Aggiebean (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It was actually in March 1922 that Clara Peuthert left Dalldorf and started spreading her story around Berlin to the Russian monarchists. Later, in May, Fräulein Unbekannt left Dalldorf to go live with Baron Arthur von Kleist and his family. ChatNoir24 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

More unproven, unverifiable fantasy. Finneganw 02:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Chat disagrees with his own source! It was Kurth's book that stated she left the asylum on Jan. 20, 1922. Where did you get March, Chat?Aggiebean (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I got March from Nidda's book. Kurth's book is at work, I'll check tomorrow. ChatNoir24 (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"I, Anastasia?" You know that book is fiction, far more complete fantasy than Kurth's, it even plagiarizes other books claiming them to be 'memories', it's useless as a source. The date is on page 14 of Kurth's book. The difference is, Nidda's book was written as fantasy, Kurth's was written as alleged truth but turned out to be based on fiction such as Rathlef and Botkin's views of her 'memories.'Aggiebean (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't allow that. Nidda's commentary is a secondary source and can be used if an appropriate judgement is made on the content. He analyses and comments upon Anderson's autobiography, and even points out the discrepancies and problems with it. For example, he calls her flight from Ekaterinburg through Rumania: "bold inventions even for a dramatist", and points out that her detractors "treat this barely credible story as a piece of far-fetched romance". It is her autobiography itself which is the problem, not Nidda's examination of it. DrKay (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added "The false claims in the mental hospital that Anderson was Anastasia first received public attention in 1922." If there is disagreement over the month, we can just use "1922". DrKay (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Clara Peuthert left Dalldorf in January of 1922, but it was not until March 6, 1922, that she contacted Captain Nicholas Adolfovitch von Schwabe, and the story really broke. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"March" added. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The false claims in the mental hospital that Anderson was Anastasia first received public attention in March 1922 is not exactly accurate because when it first started, she was said to be Tatiana, and it was "Tatiana" Clara originally touted and "Tatiana" emigres originally came to see. Rather than get into all that Tatiana/Anastasia stuff and fight with Chat over the nurse story, maybe it would be best to just say 'the false claim' and leave out the names?Aggiebean (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "The false claims in the mental hospital that Anderson was a Russian grand duchess first received public attention in March 1922." DrKay (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay.Aggiebean (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mental health?

• OK, do we need to beat the dead horse about Anna's mental health so much? So, let's say we do want to beat that dead horse--where are the exact sources that stated "mental illness" ref: Anna? I do not know, that is why I mention it. What will this do except to show that she spent lots of time in hospitals? And again, I think a good authority or two is more than enough to show she was mental...why is that so important? Had Princess Anastasia truly survived, she'd have been more mental than anyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.88.242 (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what supporters tried to use, that she was 'traumatized' by the murders of the family, etc., and FS, who was already legally insane by 1916, was lucky enough to have her mental issues as an excuse and people bought it. You know there's no source that says she was mental, but the fact that she spent much time in mental homes all her life, and for goodness sake spent most of her life pretending to be somebody else is sufficient proof she had serious mental issues. This is important to mention, because it speaks of her life and personal problems but it also comes into play in the claim. It's very much part of her story and the character she was.Aggiebean (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

She was never adjudged mentally ill by any doctor, and she did not die in a mental hospital. She died in an adult-care facility run by Jane Holt in Charlottesville.

Also, she did not show signs of mental illness in America, only frayed nerves, and she was put in the Four Winds Sanatorium without being examined by a doctor. The Berlin Police did not identify her as FS, they just accepted an order from Darmstadt which told them that she was FS. She never adopted the name Anderson, it was only used for the stay at the Garden City Hotel, and later for her false passport when being sent back to Germany. It was the press who made her known as Anna Anderson. The name she went by, was Tschaikovsky, not Tschiakovsky. ChatNoir24 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposed lead does not say she was judged mentally ill or that she died in a mental hospital or that the Berlin police identified her as FS.

She used "Anderson" for a hotel stay and she used it on a passport. So, she used the name. I've changed "adopted" to "used". Typo corrected. DrKay (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again Chat is in denial. Anybody who attempts to commit suicide has serious mental health issues. A sane person gives their name when requested in hospital. Fraulein Unbekannt repeatedly refused to do so. It was in a mental hospital that the story she was Anastasia was concocted. She was also judically certified in New York. The truth is out. You should rant elsewhere Chat. Finneganw 18:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No sane person gets put in asylums as many times as she did. She had mental problems. Attempting suicide, pretending to be somebody else, even living in the squalor she accumulated are all signs of mental illlness, along with her mood swings and odd behavior. And no, sorry, it's not because her nerves were 'frayed' by the 'trauma' of 'Ekaterinburg' because she wasn't really Anastasia. She was FS, who was declared legally insane in 1916. The shoe fits.Aggiebean (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact:She was put up at Dalldorf because the Berlin Police had not managed to identify her and had no idea of what to do with her. Diagnosis: Depression. As soon as somebody was willing to take her in, she was free to go. (It is curious to see that the police could not identify her as FS since FS had been in and out of sanatoria in Berlin for years and was known by quite an array of hospital personnel.)

Fact: She was sent to 4 Winds Sanatorium without being examined by a doctor. Diagnosis at the sanatorium: Just needs rest for her frayed nerves. Upon arrival at Ilten, she was told that she was free to go at once, there was nothing mentally wrong with her. Fact: In 1983, she was committed to Blue Ridge Hospital where she was placed in the psychiatric ward for observation and examination. Having found no evidence of mental illness, she was transferred to the University of Virginia Medical Center. Fact: No doctor who examined her ever stated that she showed signs of mental illness. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Give it up, Chat, people do not get put away that many times if they're not nuts. The fact that she pretended to be another person for over 60 years alone qualifies her as batty. And don't forget all the wacko stories of her and Jack thinking the KGB was stalking in their yard, trying to poison them, etc. She was paranoid, delusional, and had several personality disorders.Aggiebean (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts, your own opinion has no place in Wikipedia. ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chat you are the one who can't stick to facts. Your fantasies have no place at wikipedia. Finneganw 02:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The 'facts' state she was in and out of nut houses all her life, that she was FS, and that FS was declared legally insane in 1916. Her behavior was bizarre and far from normal. Conclusion- AA was mentally ill.Aggiebean (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I could change "several asylums" to "sanatoria", which would then include the TB hospitals and nursing homes in addition to the psychiatric institutions, and have a less charged connotation. DrKay (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No I think that would be inaccurate. Anderson was in mental hospitals and was placed there on judicial order more than once. It would be inaccurate to suggest otherwise. The woman had a long history of mental illness. Finneganw 09:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In how many mental hospitals was she placed? DrKay (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out "several asylums". It doesn't appear to be true. For the period in question, between 1927 and 1968, everyone above appears to agree that she was in one asylum only. DrKay (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

->What? Only one asylum??!! No, this isn't true, she was in several, Dalldorf, Four Winds,(early 30's) another after returning to Germany in the 30's, yet another in Germany after her 1968 breakdown, Blue Ridge in VA in the 80's. There may have even been more incidents. I can find sources when I have more time.Sane people don't get committed that many times.Aggiebean (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You've just agreed with what I've written and with what ChatNoir wrote: she was in one asylum between 1927 and 1968 (Four winds in America). The only question is over the second asylum back in Germany. You say she was placed there, but ChatNoir says she was discharged instantly. DrKay (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We could change "Franziska Schanzkowska, a Kashubian factory worker born on 16 December 1896 in Pomerania (then in Prussia but now in Poland)." to "Franziska Schanzkowska, a Kashubian factory worker with a history of mental illness". The birth date is already given twice before, it shouldn't be necessary to say it a third time. DrKay (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough DrKay. I'd go with what you have above re the change about history of mental illness.Finneganw 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As for "going in and out of asylums", let me repeat once more: She was placed at Dalldorf in March of 1920 after the police had failed in identifying her and had no idea of what to do with her. At Dalldorf, the diagnosis was "depression". No mental illness. In New York, she was sent to the Four Winds Sanatorium by the Jennings family, who bribed three doctors to sign the commitment papers. No doctor ever examined miss Anderson. The diagnosis from Four Winds was that the lady simply needed rest for her frayed nerves. Again, no mental illness. Upon arrival at Ilten in Germany, she was placed in a room for dangerous persons. The next day, she was evaluated by the doctors, and she was told that she was free to go. There was nothing mentally wrong with her. Late in life, she was admitted to the Blue Ridge Hospital for mental evaluation. Again, no signs of mental illness was found. In short, the lady was NEVER diagnosed as mentally ill. ChatNoir24 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If Aggiebean agrees that the second stay was overnight then we can move on from there. We can't say she "lived in several asylums", if she only lived in one in America. Clearly an overnight stay is not "living in". If I stay in a hospital overnight, I wouldn't say "I'm living in a hospital". "Living" implies longer-term residence. Is there feeling against adding "sanatoria" or "nursing homes" to cover the other hospitalised periods? DrKay (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No she spent more than a year in Four Winds Sanatorium in Katonah, NY, where she was declared "dangerous to herself and others". July 24, 1930, and the petition was put before the NY State supreme court to have her committed, which she was. After being sent back to Germany in August 1931, she was put in another mental home, Kuranstalt Ilten, what Chat says is misleading. Due to the diagnosis at Four Winds, which was insanity, she was put in a room for dangerous persons but after they evaluated her awhile they moved her to a regular room, she was not 'free to go', she still had to live at the sanatorium. She spent at least six months there, I see a record of her having her expenses paid for that long, but she may have stayed even longer. Then she was also drugged and hauled away in Germany in 1968 after a nervous breakdown (this may have been a psych ward of a regular hospital). Counting Dalldorf, the first one where she spent 2 years after her suicide attempt, and Blue Ridge Psychiatric Hospital in VA that is five, much more than 'one asylum and one overnighter'. Also when she was put away in the 80s, it was much worse than Chat makes it sound, it wasn't 'overnight'and then she was sent home, it was determined she couldn't take care of herself and her husband couldn't care for her,(http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2007/07/05/COVER-jackManahan-I.rtf.aspx) she was sent to Blue Ridge and even given a court appointed guardian! But her husband was so afraid she'd be committed he actually abducted her and they hid out for days. There is proof of all this. I don't have a problem with 'in and out of sanatoria and hospitals' (not 'lived in')because she was also in many hospitals/hospices long term due to her TB in the 20s- but there is no denying her extensive record with mental health issues.Aggiebean (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you should know by now, AA was NOT examined by a psychiatrist before she was admitted to the sanatorium at Katonah. Wilton Lloyd-Smith had engaged three doctors to sign the commitment papers, and they were paid altogether 1250 dollars for the service, without seeing AA. She was then taken away and deposited at Four Winds Sanatorium. The report from the sanatorium was that she was not deranged, just in need of attention for her disordered nerves. Later, at Ilten, "the lack of any symptoms of insanity was proved so conclusively during the very first examination that we were already able to tell Frau Tschaikovsky on the second day that she was not insane and not in need of treatment in an institution", wrote Dr. Hans Willige. The only reason that she remained at Ilten for 6 months, was that she had no place to stay, and Ilten was pre-paid for 6 months by the Jennings family. But that is not the same as being committed to an institution. In 1968, she was taken to the Neuenbürg district hospital, suffering from malnourishment. At the end of her life, she was taken to Blue Ridge Hospital for evaluation, and since no sign of mental illness was found, she was transferred to another hospital.ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

She was ruled by those doctors to be "untidy, extremely suspicious and had delusions of persecution". The idea that anyone was 'bribed' to put her away is another conspiracy theory. After her rooftop display and how she was behaving, locking herself in rooms, hitting people with sticks, throwing things, running naked on the roof, it was obvious she was crazy and no one had to fake that! Kurth's book mentions 3 doctors asking for either $500 or $250 but that does not sound like a bribe but normal doctor fees for such a duty in those days. The Jennings family was worth billions if anyone wanted to bilk them they'd have asked for much more. IF they had wanted to just get rid of AA they could have sent her back to Germany, or Leeds, or just put her out on the street. Annie Jennings honestly felt AA was in need of psychiatric help and volunteered to pay for it, which she did, both in the US and once she returned to Germany. This woman should be commended for her kindness, not branded a 'briber' out to get AA. That sounds like 'delusions of persecution!'Aggiebean (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And "those doctors" never examined her, so their verdicts are useless. As for your "conspiracy theory", read the letter from Lloyd-Smith to Walter Jennings. It would be so nice if you stopped inserting your own opinions here and instead stuck to the facts. ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just reread that whole chapter in Kurth's book. What you are reading into it is truly a conspiracy theory. All they did was ask to be paid, and in very modest amounts considering the wealth of the Jennings family.

Bottom line- it is fact based to say she was 'in and out of sanatoria and hospitals'.Aggiebean (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Read again, and you will see that AA had not yet been examined by a psychiatrist, nor would she be until she was carted off to the sanatorium. The doctors Wilton Lloyd-Smith had engaged to sign the commitment papers were ready, all the same. ChatNoir24 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not too many run naked a hotel roof. Lots of schizophrenics do this sort of behaviour though. It's not surprising she was certified. She was nuttier than any fruit cake ever made. This was of course after her years in a mental hospital after her attempted suicide. Go figure! Finneganw 01:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• You all know very well that what has been suggested by Kay and seconded by me is good enough. HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS, SEVERAL HOSPITALIZATIONS. Stop this aggiebeaning of the topic and move it along! Jeez, how CRAZY does the damned old fraud have to be to satisfy you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.121.143 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I was trying to say she did have mental health issues and Chat was saying she didn't it was only a conspiracy to have her put away. He said she wasn't in several sanatoria and I was stating that she was. The line 'history of mental illness' or 'in and out of sanatoria and hospitals' are fine with me, the problem is Chat's denial so get off my case and stop trolling us again. I don't see you doing anything but attacking us, that is counterproductive.Aggiebean (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to say that AA was mentally ill, you have to name the doctors who determined that she was. The fact is that every doctor who evaluated her, and there were quite a few, found no sign of mental illness, all the way up to her stay at the Blue Ridge Hospital in the early 80's. The three doctors who signed the commitment papers in New York, did NOT examine her, they were bribed to sign the commitment papers, nothing more, nothing less. That's why their names are concealed in Lloyd-Smith's letter. If you want to state that she was mentally ill, you have to back it up, and so far, you have not been able to.ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposed lead does not say that. So, I take it then that you are happy with the way it is worded? DrKay (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy is not the word. But I will leave it as it is. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mental issues, easy

People, people! Someone above made an excellent statement that fits in the entry perfectly: "she had a history of mental illness [we might say 'well-known']", then we say what Kay proposes, "was in and out of sanatoria all her life". It takes the POV sting out of the issue without covering up her craziness. Kay, I do not include you in this hypothetical query, but my God, where did y'all go to school? This is an easy issue to write and frame in the entry!

No, Miss Anderson had NO history of mental illness, no matter how much you try to fit it in. Franzisca Schanzkowska was declared "an incurable, but harmless, lunatic", although her sister Gertrude said: "I certainly did not consider her insane." ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I recognize this last post as Chat from his IP. As for our old friend who started the new category and left his post unsigned, please note that we have been asked to keep all our comments in their proper category.We cannot deny her history of mental issues. There is documentation she was committed to at least 3 sanatoriums and two psych wards, see above.Aggiebean (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, mental illness history not so easy

• Thanks to aggiebean, for recognizing that I am not ChatNoir24. And I must reiterate, FS has the mental illness history, though we tend to forget that "mental illness" covers much ground. I say we stick with the proposed "history of mental illness". I'm sorry I used the word "craziness".

• It seems the "mental illness" is an issue that should not dominate this discussion anymore. What was her diagnosis, in modern terminology? POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME. Can we either use that, or just go with the "history of mental illness"?

That is a theory, but we don't know that. She probably was driven crazy by the explosion at the factory where she saw her foreman blown to bits, and the death of her fiancee in the war. Of course AA supporters claim she was traumatized by "Ekaterinburg" but of course that's not true since she wasn't Anastasia. The basic facts remain the woman struggled with mental issues all her adult life and spent more time in sanatoria than any sane person.Aggiebean (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

She may have spent more time in sanatoria than most of us, but the point here is that she was never adjudged mentally ill. If you still want to harp on that issue, you better be prepared to provide the name of the doctor who pronounced her mentally ill. ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

She was in Four Winds, and if you didn't add the name in your book it's not my fault. The FACT is, she did spend much time in sanatoria, and did have mental health issues all her life. Again, the delusion of pretending to be a dead princess would be enough to rule her batty, if not for all her other hangups and mental problems.Aggiebean (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that she spent time in Four Winds Sanatorium. The point is that she was not seen by a doctor before the commitment, and once at the sanatorium, she was diagnosed as needing rest for her nerves. No mental illness there or anywhere else. And what do you mean by "my book"? I have never written any. ChatNoir24 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Most mentally ill people have 'nerve' problems. She had far more than that. She was totally in cloud cuckoo land. Finneganw 01:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes she was, and it showed!

Chat, whether or not you believe she should have been in those nut houses or if you believe, as always, somebody was 'paid off' to get AA (like you think about Gilliard, Doris W., etc.) she WAS in there and we do have the right to state those facts in the article. Your POV that she was not mental but an innoncent victim being locked up to shut her up or whatever reason to get rid of her is only a conspiracy theory that has no proof and does not belong in the article.Aggiebean (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can provide us with the name of the doctor who adjudged her mentally ill. And I do not "think" that Doris Wingender was paid for her testimony, we have the copy of her contract, the testimony of Fritz Lucke and her own testimony where she admits being paid DM1500 for "identifying" AA as FS. ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Aggiebean, it is clear that you cannot and will not listen to ANYONE. "History of mental illness" is not enough for you. "PTS" is not enough, though I admit it to be a professional guess, not even pertinent because it wasn't used in FS's case anyway. No, you want to start this POV war again and say she was as nutty as a person can get...because she was a fraud or because she really thought she was Princess Anastasia. Lord, just accept what Kay worded so wonderfully! And let's move along! This mulish behavior is just what certain users did over three years ago, and look where this entry is at now...barely progressed!

Summing up then, this is what we appear to have sources for: 1. She lived in an asylum as a patient between August 1930 and August 1931. 2. She lived at the asylum in Germany for six months from August 1931, but as a guest rather than a patient. 3. The High Court in New York State adjudicated in 1930 that she was insane. 4. The opinion of the court was based (partly) on the opinions of private doctors who received fees for their diagnostic services. I see no sources for a conspiracy theory, bribery, living in several asylums between 1927 and 1968 (one certainly, possibly two), or a diagnosis of PTS.

Now, the fact is that the proposed lead does not contain any of these details, and I see no reason to add them. It's apparent that a lot of the discussion on this page is about Anna Anderson, not about the article. There are also a number of goading comments. May I remind you yet again that this page is not an Anna Anderson forum, nor should it be used to abuse other editors. It is for discussing improvements to the article only. I've made a couple of amendments to the proposed lead, and I'd like to hear hopefully final comments on it. Comments should specify sentences which are not verifiable, specify sentences which are not neutral, specify topics which are missing, or specify instances where grammar or spelling can be improved. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record though there is no proof she was a 'guest' at the sanatorium that is only Chat's POV just as it's his POV the doctors were bribed. When not in hospitals, she was living parasitically off one or more benefactors who bought into her story and found pity in her. From 1949 to 1968 she lived in a shack in which she barricaded herself, usually refused to answer the door, let no one in and rarely came out. It, like her later home in Charlottesville, was one of squalor with numerous animals. But of course none of this need be in the article. I did have one issue which I just addressed in the 'lead' discussion.Aggiebean (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My POV? What about Dr. Hans Willige's written report that she was in no need of treatment at any institution? What about Lloyd-Smith's letter to Jennings about paying off the doctors? And what was wrong with her wanting her privacy when journalists and tourists were practically barging in on her? You should be the last one to talk about POV. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all very well, but there are also sources which say she was insane. We can't say she wasn't insane without also including the opposing view, and that just lengthens and confuses the lead unnecessarily. I think it is better not to say either directly. DrKay (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And which sources said that she was insane? Names of the doctors, please.ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A better picture of things

• • Would it be better if we keep the photo that is there and add the authenticated earlier photo identified positively as FS? This would not be redundant, because I believe the public should she the photo of her whe she "was" FS and then see the later photo when she claimed she wasn't. They'll see clearly that she was. This struck me when I studied the photos of Anastasia and I could see FS was not Anastasia, nor even resembled her that much. Thoughts, Kay?

The problem with the photo of FS is that it has never been authenticated. It was just presented by Martin Knopf, and could be any girl in Berlin.ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that wiki is so anal about pictures wanting to know the exact original source etc. which is usually impossible with old pics that we generally don't use them. Also there is so much controversy over picture matching there'd have to be a couple dozen of them so best to just leave them out of it in this article. However it does make me laugh that Chat always says the FS pic is not 'authenticated.' Well buddy whoever she is she looks exactly like AA!Aggiebean (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? How come then that every professional comparison says no? ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the most modern and high tech, Oxlee, said YES.Aggiebean (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

High tech? Comparing two photos from different angles? Surely you jest. ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Computer graphics and image fusion. Oxlee, using those methods, is often called as an expert witness in forensic cases by Scotland Yard, and has been awarded high honors by British Military intelligence for his facial ID work.Aggiebean (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is disputing the methods and the credentials of Geoffrey Oxlee. ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you doubt his results?Aggiebean (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Because he is in Anderson in Wonderland! I wonder whether he is the Mad Hatter or the March Hare? Finneganw 01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a Cheshire cat, a black one! It is a different realm of reality down that rabbit hole!Aggiebean (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't use File:Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg for licensing reasons. It requires an original source, author and first publication date. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was saying. With those old pictures that's impossible.Aggiebean (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what Geoffrey Oxlee himself has to say about the photo comparison:

it was a piece for TV. I felt at the time that the imagery evidence pointed to the possibility that Franchesca was Anna Anderson and said so. However, the material for the comparison was not as good as one would have wished and we compared Franchesca with no one other than Anna Anderson. I believe that other forensic evidence was more compelling. I have kept a copy of neither the TV tape nor my work on this task. Sorry I cant be more specific Geoffrey Oxlee. (I do, of course, have Geoffrey Oxlee's permission to print this.) ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this quote, but unfortunately it can't be used in the article without an appropriate source. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to print it in the article, I just wanted to show miss Aggiebean that Mr. Oxlee did in no way "identify" AA as FS. The source is Geoffrey Oxlee himself in a personal letter to me. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am certain by 'other forensic evidence' being 'more compelling' he was talking about the DNA, not previous, less high tech facial exams. When he says the material is 'not as good as one wished' he's right, for ALL the photo tests, all they had were blurry, grainy, b&W photos which are not the best quality. I hope you aren't taking this as any kind of endorsement that she may still be Anastasia because he certainly did not say or mean that. I'm sure if you asked him- and I just might too- that what he did was far superior to the old fashioned tests done by your Nazi friends in the past. Honestly, the lips and jawline alone are so very different in AA and Anastasia, and so identical in AA and FS, I even wonder if some of the old 'experts' weren't helping her along for a cut of the money, too. IMO even a legally blind person could tell the facial shapes and bone structure are nothing alike. AA resembled Tatiana more and this is why Peuthert picked her.Aggiebean (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blind Freddie could tell there was no similarity at all between Anderson/Schankowska and Grand Duchess Anastasia. It was so very obvious they had no connection whatsoever. I don't even think modern plastic surgery could successfully make Schankowska/Anderson look like Grand Duchess Anastasia. Certainly they eyes never lie and Anderson/Schankowska's eyes never looked like Anastasia's. It was all a pathetic hoax from the very beginning and money was the reason for the fraud. Botkin and others remain beneath contempt as do others who try to perpetuate the nonsense beyond DNA testing. I think Dr. Botkin would have disowned his own children if he had known how disgusting they were going to behave. He would have been absolutely mortified. Finneganw 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As Grand Duchess Olga wrote to AA after meeting her: "My thoughts are with you - I am remembering the times we were together, when you stuffed me full of chocolates, tea and cocoa. It is so sad to go away knowing that you are ill and suffering and lonely. Don't be afraid. You are not alone now, and we shall not abandon you." Seems to me that AA must have looked a LOT like AN. As for "the lips and the jawline", we have Felix S. telling Dr. Völler on his trip from Ammendorf that "Franzisca never had a mouth like that". But, we all see what we want to see. And I don't remember Professor Furtmayr ever being connected with the Nazis in the 70's. And I never saw anything about Professors Eyckstedt, Klenke and Reche being rejected by the Anthropological Society due to their work being discredited. Only Reches opponent in court, professor Clauberg, was unanimously rejected by the Anthropologic Society for his work. You better get your story right.ChatNoir24 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Chat, we have been told over and over this is not an AA message board to discuss her or her case only the working of the article. We have argued and quoted Olga A. thousands of times on many sites and there are far more things she said against AA so don't even bother to start again, this is the kind of thing that dragged down the article in the first place. Your Nazis' results were not accepted by the German courts, they were later discredited, and of course proven wrong by the fact AA was not AN. But seriously anyone can look at a picture and see the wide jaw and flat chin and thick, wide mouth of AA/FS is nothing like the long, thin chin, narrow jaw and small, thin lips of AN. Of course only the DNA matters now anyway so it's pointless to continue to plead her long defeated case.Aggiebean (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are now the anthropological expert? Interesting.ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Chat, what are you trying to prove? She wasn't Anastasia and nothing you try will ever change that.Aggiebean (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Chat is dredging up bogus quotes yet again in his increasingly bizarre entries. He will never understand reality as he believes Anderson was Anastasia. All in all a very hopeless case. It's sad that he has nothing better to do with his time than pushing unverifiable fabrications. It would be good if he stopped slandering the dead who actually knew the real Anastasia from birth. Finneganw 03:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Oh, one thing struck me and I may be vilified for questioning it, this of course is for later consideration: aren't there just too darned many citations and references beneath the entry? I mean, it's more in sources/citations than it is in content. That seems oddly lopsided to me. In other words, whom can we do without, to make the facts work?75.21.155.47 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The citations and references are there to give the article credibility. If they are removed readers cannot do further reading themselves. An article without references is not verifiable. I would never support removing references. That is a rather dubious tactic at best. If somebody claims something in this article it must be verified using a credible source. Problems have occurred previously as can be clearly seen when unverifiable sources have been used or at worse verifiable information has been deliberately twisted, distorted and actually altered. Finneganw 10:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe the article will be expanded with a full rewrite, so hopefully this issue won't persist. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I did NOT propose removing citations willy-nilly, or even much at all, but the reference material is at some point going to sway toward a POV of some kind-- it's thrice the length of the entry! So the new person appearing above is quite correct: leave it, since it will expand somewhat. And I do not appreciate a valid question to be described as "dubious". This page is finally being used rightly and nonsense like that is not needed, finneganw.

2. No one looks like they're taking a week off, but go right ahead if you want. This thing is about finished and done very well, thanks to DrKay and Vyvyan's super-concentrated hard work.76.195.82.162 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and I'd like to reduce the references section. Specifically, the references from the Cathedral, Antonov, Massie's first book and Znamenov are about the Romanovs, not Anderson. So, I think they can be removed. I also think that the two primary sources, von Rahl and Yussopov can be removed without detriment, since none of our readers has access to these primary sources except through secondary sources. DrKay (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anderson is mentioned in Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert Massie. Finneganw 15:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

As we're still waiting for a brief sketch on her life for the lead, I don't think it's necessary at this early stage to discuss any expansion of the biography. We can do that once we have agreed on the biographical bit in the lead.

Instead, we can work on expanding less contended sections.

I have taken two, on popular culture and DNA evidence, out of the archived old version and worked on them a little. Please post relevant comments in the appropriate section below.

I think the reasons have been pretty clearly outlined why a brief sketch of /Schankowska/Anderson's life is very difficult indeed to write. I think that has been explained. Finneganw 14:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's that hard to write a brief sketch because the key events that are not yet mentioned in the lead (suicide attempt, institutionalisation, marriage, life in the United States) are not contentious. It only requires someone to draft it. You've already had a couple of attempts yourself: "For a time she went by the name Fraulein Unbekannt (German for Miss Unknown} as she refused to reveal her identity to anybody in the mental hospital she had been placed in due to a suicide attempt. Later she adopted the false name of Tschiakovsky and later Anderson. Late in her life she married a John Manahan and adopted his name."[1] and "Bare bones about her life - birth, change of identity, losing court case, marriage, death and place of burial."[2] DrKay (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you have got what you have got. Finneganw 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See, the above is why we get nowhere. If that quote Kay used is typical of your writing style, f, I hope someone else does the writing. How about following the suggestions and drafting something decent? Frauds still lead lives!76.195.93.15 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DNA evidence

Draft: In 1991, the bodies of Tsar Nicholas II, Alexandra and three of their daughters were exhumed from a mass grave near Ekaterinburg. They were identified on the basis of both skeletal analysis and DNA testing. For example, mitochondrial DNA can be used to match maternal relations, and mitochondrial DNA from the female bones matched that of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, whose maternal grandmother Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine was a sister of Alexandra.

A sample of Anderson's tissue, removed during a medical procedure in 1979, was stored at Martha Jefferson Hospital, Charlottesville, Virginia. Anderson's mitochondrial DNA was extracted from the sample and compared with that of the Romanovs and their relatives. It did not match that of the Duke of Edinburgh or that of the bones, confirming that Anderson was not Anastasia. The samples did match DNA provided by Franziska Schanzkowska's great nephew Karl Maucher, indicating that Karl Maucher and Anna Anderson were related and that Anderson was Schanzkowska. Four years after the original testing was done, Dr. Terry Melton of the Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, stated that the DNA sequence tying Anderson to the Schanzkowska family was still unique though the database of DNA patterns at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory had grown much larger, leading to increased confidence that she was Franziska Schanzkowsa.

Similarly, several strands of Anderson's hair from an envelope labelled "Anastasia's hair" found inside a book that had belonged to Jack Manahan were also tested. Mitochondrial DNA from the hair matched Anderson's hospital sample and that of Schanzkowska's relative Karl Maucher but not that of the Romanov remains or living relatives of the Romanovs.

Though the bodies of the Tsar, Tsarina and three of their daughters were identified, the bodies of Tsarevich Alexei and one of his sisters, identified as Grand Duchess Maria by Russian scientists and as Grand Duchess Anastasia by American scientists, were not in the grave with the others. In 2007, Russian archaeologists working near Ekaterinburg discovered two partial skeletons matching the descriptions of the two missing Romanovs: a 12–15 year old boy and a young woman between the ages of 15 and 19. Repeated and independent DNA tests proved that the remains were the two missing Romanovs, and confirmed that Anastasia died in 1918.

Any comments or objections? DrKay (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think more needs to be said about the fact that she was fingered as FS as early as 1927, and the Berlin police did accept the identification made by the private detectives that she was FS, a young woman who went missing in Berlin around the same time AA appeared. This would make more sense when explaining why the DNA matched. I really think there is too much detail on the bodies and ages of the family members, while what you have written is good and true, just as I wanted to avoid the part stating as fact Anastasia was buried in 1998, I don't like mentioning that there is still some question over whether she was the buried body or the burned one found in 2007. Personally I feel the evidence much more strongly points to her being the burned body, and this would be more dramatic that she was only recently found when some claimed she'd never be, but the fact is even the scientists are not sure which girl was which due to a lack of nuclear DNA sample from the girls when they were alive to match to the skeletons. IMO, mentioning that there is still some controversy- even though there is NO controversy on whether or not they all died in 1918- only invites the kind of speculation and questions we are trying to bury with this article.It would be best to word it that all the bodies are found and identified and there is no question they all died together, and leave out all the stuff about why she may be which body, or how old they all were, etc.Aggiebean (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Redacted. There's no consensus on the inclusion of the 1920s identification (see #Franziska Schanzkowska above). I've removed some of the detail on ages of family members. I'd prefer to discuss the two separate studies one after the other; I see no controversy about Anastasia's death. It is known that she died, and no-one here has claimed otherwise. DrKay (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But there's one thing you need to understand, and Finneganw and many others can back this up- EVERYTHING Chat says, from denying she was FS to taking up for her bogus 'memory' stories, is because he believes AA was Anastasia and wants that idea to come across in the story somehow. All of us who have dealt with him for years know this and he's not changing. He's not stupid enough to tell you that outright, but all his posts leave that message, and if you don't believe me go back through the talk page history and see for yourself. This is why if you're waiting for the 'consensus' to include him, we're in for quite a long and unpleasant haul.Aggiebean (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'm interjecting here because I want to reply to aggiebean--she's tried to tar/feather me with ChatNoir's brush. Everyone knows I am not ChatNoir. I believe in the practical ideas aggie has had for this entry--it is important to balance the Anna biography with the DNA evidence. It's really fruitless to try to say the cops made her back in '21. That is an unsourced allegation until aggie produces the source. But we have all we need, now. The article MUST NOT question that this was Franziska! Why are we still arguing this??76.195.93.15 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about, cops in 21? The cops did accept her as FS in 1927, and this is true and documented.Aggiebean (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus over Schankowska by eminent historians and scientists. You will never get that though from rabid Anderson supporters as they believe still that she was Anastasia. It's very simply to work out. Finneganw 03:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right, in the real world, there IS consensus, it's just a few diehard Anderson supporters here who can't accept it. No one famous other than Kurth questions it, and as the article mentioned, major news agencies state as a fact in their reporting she was FS. We also have a sourced quote from "Seven Daughters of Eve", along with other things. Really, all that's stopping us is that Chat and Bookworm don't want to believe it, and is that good enough reason to not put the facts in the article for the rest of the world?Aggiebean (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And here I agree with aggie 100%. Of course she will just say I'm ChatNoir and get me into more trouble. But I say she's right. And the sooner she loses a little monopolgy on this page, the sooner the article gets completed correctly!!76.195.93.15 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Draft: In 1928, a silent film called Clothes Make the Woman was based very loosely on the woman who would one day be called "Anna Anderson". In 1956, another highly fictionalized film was made about a figure based on Anna Anderson, Anastasia, starring Ingrid Bergman as Anna/Anastasia. Bergman won an Academy Award for her portrayal of the central character. The 1997 animated film of the same name was inspired by the earlier 1956 film, but the central character ("Anastasia" or "Anya") is depicted as Grand Duchess Anastasia, even though the film was released after DNA tests proved that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia.

NBC ran a two-part fictionalized mini-series in December 1986 titled Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna which starred Amy Irving and won her a Golden Globe nomination. It was based on a book about Anna Anderson written by Peter Kurth.

Kevin Hearn of the band Barenaked Ladies wrote a song called "Anna, Anastasia" for his solo album H-Wing, and Tori Amos wrote a song titled "Yes, Anastasia" for her Under the Pink album.

In 2006, Diana Norman, writing under the pseudonym Ariana Franklin, published a novel City of Shadows, a fictionalized account of Anderson's time in Berlin from 1920 to 1933. In it she seems to accept that Anderson was a fraud, but invents a colourful post-Revolution history for the Grand Duchess herself.

See the essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles for some guidance on what popular culture sections should contain. DrKay (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should have said, I think I saw the 1956 film many, many years ago, but I've completely forgotten it and I haven't seen any of the others. All this material is lifted from the old version, not something I've looked up myself. DrKay (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think the 'Popular Culture' section should be classified as 'Trivia'. The vast majority tries to claim Anderson was Anastasia which NEVER was the case. Ingrid Bergman starred in the role as 'Anastasia'. Yul Brynner was also in the film. It pretended that Anderson was Anastasia. Helen Hayes played the role of the Dowager Empress and even unbelievably because it never happened even met the fake Anastasia!! There was also a Kenneth McMillan ballet 'Anastasia' in the repertoire of the Royal Ballet based on the myth. Meant to say that the text of the 'Tsar' book is by Kurth and Radzinsky. Christopher took the photos only so the bibliographical entry is incorrect. Kurth of course pushes fake information about Anderson in that particular work, as always so that is unverifiable. What is laughable about Marina Botkin Schweitzer and her husband Richard is the fact that even though they knew the tissue belonged to Anderson at the hospital and always stated that Anderson was Anastasia, once the results of the DNA tests came out proving Anderson a fraud they chose to claim the samples were not hers as they were desperate to prove Anderson was Anastasia. I think DrKay you really need to be very careful with all of this as the main facts are that she was a fraud and never Anastasia. She was in fact Franziska Schankowska. I think you have seen the tactics that have been used by desperate Anderson supporters. They range from she was Anastasia to she wasn't Schankowska trying to still keep the door open that she was Anastasia. It's all rather pathetic really. What I think any sensible person would want here would be for the article to be very brief indeed. Otherwise as Aggiebean has stated it will go all over the place. No information that doubts her DNA proven identity should be allowed. Please also note that Kurth's main book was never a biography. What it was in fact was a very POV work pushing Anderson as Anastasia. That is not a biography by any means. It is completely inaccurate, slanders the reputations of people who were 100% accurate and fabricates 'information' which never came from them. That is why I say again the bare bones are already included in the lead about her. There has never been a biography published on Anderson in fact. Finneganw 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There were also 3 very bad 'off brand' ripoffs of the "Anastasia" cartoon that went straight to video, two of which untilize the Anderson cart story, which the Don Bluth production avoided. One even has "Alexander Tchiakovsky", her fictional 'rescuer', as a named and faced character! Seeing this, it's easy to see what a fairy tale her whole legend was, and now it's in the same category as other stories that never happened like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty.

I agree Kurth's book isn't really a biography but a presentation of her cause from her POV. It avoids much negative and damning evidence that was available long before it was written, and leans heavily on the writings of Rathlef and Botkin, big time supporters who sold stories about her. Much of it actually reads like a very romanticized novel, check out the chapters "Shadows of the Past" and "What have I done" for starters if you don't believe me. In his book "Tsar", Kurth even had blatantly false information, such as that 1994 facial tests proved her to be 'with certainty' Anastasia- in fact, the tests, done by Oxlee, found her to be Franziska, but sadly for awhile the false info was quoted here because it was sourced in a book. This is why we have to be very careful about anything written by AA supporters. I also agree about Marina Botkin and her husband, they were so strongly fighting to get the tissue sample from MJH to prove she was Anastasia, but once it proved false, they immediately said 'something must have happened', which started the intestine switch conspiracy theories. Same with Kurth and the hair, he endorsed it until it gave a negative result, then suddenly it wasn't hers anymore? This is how the AA supporter are and why we have to be so careful. Of course now that we have all the bodies, the intestines and hair don't even matter as much since we have proof the real Anastasia was dead in 1918, but still some won't accept that fact and will try to pollute the article with their very wrong POV and insinuations meant to leave the door ajar for AA to sneak back in as AN. We can't let that happen.Aggiebean (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please try to split both the above posts and put the relevant portions in the appropriate section. Comments on improving the DNA evidence section should be placed in the DNA evidence section, and comments on improving the popular culture section should go here. DrKay (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I am finding this format very difficult to follow. Having to scroll back up and dig through numerous posts and indentations and having only a date to go by to see what is new is extremely confusing. I liked it better all in a straight line. I agree very much topics should be kept together, and that works well on a message board where each thread is its own entity you can click on, not a long stream of writings where anyone can interject like this. It's too hard to find what's being discussed.Aggiebean (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. I find it confusing the other way. There are two ways around this. One is that we only tackle one issue at a time, and everything else is put on hold. The other is to use the "Compare selected versions" button on the history page. You click the tick box on the most recent version and on the last version you looked at it, and then click on "Compare selected versions" to see how the page has changed since the last time you looked at it. DrKay (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

1986 film reference?

Why do you keep avoiding the dreadful 1986 film "Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna"? Even if it is horrid, based on Kurth's book, and starring the ever-annoying Amy Irving, it should be listed with any other pop-culture crap. But this TV movie was different: based on Kurth's goofy book, it purported to show on film the "true" story of Anna. 75.21.100.46 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is there, listed above as:

NBC ran a two-part fictionalized mini-series in December 1986 titled Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna which starred Amy Irving and won her a Golden Globe nomination. It was based on a book about Anna Anderson written by Peter Kurth.Aggiebean (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You see what you want to see...and yes, my apologies for missing the actual reference, listed in the entry. 76.195.93.15 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft sections

I've added the proposed DNA evidence section to the draft article at Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle. DrKay (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have two issues with it- one is that the part about Dr. Melton saying the sequence was still unique 5 years later is already mentioned in the lead but repeated in the DNA section, we don't need both. You could leave it out of the lead since the one in the DNA section is more complete and sourced. The other problem I have is that you have re-added the controversy over whether the body found was Anastasia or Maria.(there is no controversy over whether or not they both died, but people may take it that way) As I said before, this is unnecessary, all we need to say is that the two missing bodies were found and all have been idenitified, proving all claimants to be imposters. Bringing up the disagreements of the Russians and Americans over which body was which(they have all admitted they can never tell for sure because there is no nuclear DNA from the girls when they were alive to compare to the bones) is confusing to those who don't know the whole story and may lead to undue speculation that the bodies weren't real, or of if they don't know who was who how can they know for sure, etc... I'm saying this may seem simple to you but it really does confuse some people and we want to bury all questions, not create more. So once again the Maria/Anastasia issue and the ages of the bodies found should really be left out. All we need to put is that every member of the family has been found, including the two previously 'missing' ones. It would also be nice to add that Dr. Coble stated there were four separate DNA profiles for four different grand duchesses, proving none of the daughters survived. I hope the link to his report is still in there somewhere because it's the best and explains the final results and how the mystery was solved.Aggiebean (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Amended. DrKay (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OkayAggiebean (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aggiebean. I also have amended the article because you chose to leave out the link with Prince Philip. He was crucial as a close relative of the Romanovs in disproving Anderson. It was a major blow to the Anderson side as he is the great-nephew of Tsarina Alexandra. He is not just any relative. Remember that it was his Uncle Earl Mountbatten of Burma who fought Anderson tooth and nail in the court case. The entire family did. There would be Romanov relatives alive today, a friend of mine in particular, who would be mighty offended at leaving out such information. You also chose to place renowned when you were repeatedly asked not to. I have replaced this with well known. You also put sanatoria when it is known asylum is more correct. Please do not try to sugar coat this article. It is fact that she was committed. I am sadly starting to become a touch disillusioned at people wishing to place inferences on Anderson that never existed. Anderson was never renowned at anything. Finneganw 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked you for disruption. Changes to the article should be agreed on talk in advance. If you disagreed with the wording of the proposed lead, then you should have made specific comments, as you were repeatedly asked to do. You know full well that three other editors agreed with the word "sanatoria" but you chose to ignore that and impose your own version against the compromise position in a deliberately disruptive act. DrKay (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On your two other specific points:

1. The detail of which relatives were tested, who also included the Duke of Fife, Countess Xenia Cheremeteff-Sfiri, Tikhon N. Kuilkovskii-Romanov (who initially refused but later relented), and Grand Duke Georgij Romanov (who was exumed specifically for the testing), is unnecessary in the lead. Prince Philip is given as the example in the DNA evidence section.
2. I can find no record whatever of "renowned" discussed on the talk page. Please either provide a diff or retract. I shall, however, change renowned to "well-known", as I have no problem with either term. DrKay (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think I need a lecture on Russian history or Anna Anderson. I think that was rather unnecessary. You assumed there was consensus when there was not. As somebody who has extensive knowledge and considerable academic experience in the area I tend to think you have jumped the gun a touch. I could choose to use the Dr here as well for your information, but I have no need. If you bother to check you will find I did make specific comments. I have tried to be very supportive of you. I trust you will extend me the same courtesy. Finneganw 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons I have reverted to the original rather than the proposed version. I don't want to implement the proposed version until we truly have consensus. DrKay (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

warning to all

I think it's helpful that the article has been semi-protected for now. This is a last warning, put here because everyone having to do with it will see it: Stop all personal attacks now. Any editor or IP linked with this article who makes another personal attack will be blocked for 72 hours without further warning. Comment only on content and sources. Bickering over wordings must stop now. Quote the sources if need be. Unsourced content can be removed in good faith by any editor (who must be autoconfirmed so long as semi-protection lasts, which could be awhile if need be). New reliable sources can be cited, to put new text in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering what happened to most of the talk page which has disappeared since last night. Was this the work of a vandal or did a mod do it for some reason?Aggiebean (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They were archived here: Talk:Anna_Anderson/Archive_4, by User:DrKay. If anyone has further comments on sources and how to deal with them in the text, they're welcome below. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

cleanup

Owing to its long history of back and forth PoV edit warring and lack of thorough inline sourcing, the text was a mess. I've flowed and cleaned things up into something more encyclopedic, with neutral wording. Moreover, I've put adjectives which might be challenged into quotes drawn straight from the citations. Some of the text still needs inline citations, although all of it is most likely supported by citations already listed. If any text or wording is challenged, give it an inline citation (with a quote if need be), otherwise it can indeed be removed (but not swapped out with other unsourced wording). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your changes aren't acceptable either. I've restored the original lead. Comments on the proposed lead should be made on talk. DrKay (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can remove verifiable content which has been reliably sourced. I think it would be far more helpful if you would not edit war but rather, restore this version. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you appreciate the situation. I am not edit-warring. I am mediating a dispute, after a request on the Administrator's noticeboard for a mediator with access to administrative tools and specialised knowledge of the subject matter. After lengthy discussion on the talk page, I judged that consensus was reached on the proposed lead and implemented the consensus version [3][4]. You over-rode that consensus and without any discussion imposed your own version of the article,[5] disregarding that the article is contentious and currently in mediation. Changes should not be made to the page unless prior approval and consensus is obtained through discussion on the talk page.

There is no way that your version would gain consensus. To take the first paragraph only: (1) You claim that there were 200 Anastasia claimants. That is untrue, you have misrepresented the source. It says 200 Romanov claimants. That includes false Alexei's, false Tatiana's, false Olga's, etc. (2) It is certain that Anderson was not Anastasia; phrasing like "strong scientific consensus" is far, far too weak, and would never be agreed. (3) Calling her "Anderson/Schanzkowska" is original research; there are no sources which use the term. There was lengthy previous discussion about how to refer to Schanzkowska. The proposed version is a carefully-worded compromise, but you chose to ignore it completely in favour of your own version. DrKay (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "claim that there were 200 Anastasia claimants." However, mistakes can be easily fixed and I agree the wording was wrong and should read who claimed to be Romanov children. Meanwhile, the sources don't straightforwardly support the wordings of your version and taken along with its lack of content, your version falls short of anything near encyclopedic thoroughness or NPoV. Most worrisome of all, you've deleted much verifiable and reliably sourced information from the article, which you cannot do. Please restore it now, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "Anna Anderson Manahan was the most widely known of over 200 people who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia". That is a direct quote from your version. Why "Romanov children"? Can you say this figure of 200 does not include false Tsars and Tsarinas and cousins and uncles and aunts?

Of course it lacks content, it is the lead. It's supposed to be a brief summary. The rest of the article will follow after that is agreed. This is all explained in the talk archive. If you wish to suggest that the current lead be shortened to the first paragraph only and the rest of it turned into the article, then suggest it. I will not restore your version unless it is approved by other editors. If they prefer it to the current or proposed version, then yes, of course, it will be restored. But not until then. DrKay (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't have a version. So, I'd be grateful if you didn't use the term "your version" when referring to individual or proposed revisions. DrKay (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The source says In fact, since 1918 over 200 people have claimed to be one of the five Romanov children. As I said, I made an easily fixable wording mistake there, this can be dropped now. The talk archive can't be cited for article content. Verifiable content cited to reliable sources can't be deleted, even by consensus. Anderson was clearly an imposter and the evidence is overwhelming that she had a clinically diagnosable psychiatric illness. The version you reverted puts this forth in neutral, encyclopedic language which much more carefully follows the sources (even given the mistake in wording that I made). As for "your version," it's your version, you reverted to it, you're responsible for it and from what I've seen, the editors here aren't happy with your version at all. Please restore this version and we can carry forward from there. If you don't want to take responsibilty for doing so, no worries, I understand, I can restore it myself and take the responsibility. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with DrKay here. The Anna Anderson page needs to be dealt with through discussion due to gross abuse over a number of years. I suggest it needs to be dealt with through consultation slowly. I feel the new additions are perhaps well intentioned, but do not not have the benefit of the strength that comes from constructive discusson. Finneganw 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The bygone is bygone. It's most likely that this version (with one or two tweaks) can far more easily withstand most abuse. I should say, Anderson fooled a lot of people. There are reasons for this and giving more background to her own history will quickly show most readers how this happened. Readers won't learn from bare assertions and PoV wording, however well-meant. Rather, they'll be misled and won't gather the knowledge and understanding to spot frauds like this. There is no reason under en.Wikipedia policy to hold back verifiable, reliably sourced content from the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems all along has been editors pushing information that is not verifiable and is in fact inaccurate. Anybody can write a book or article with gross inaccuracies. That does not mean it should be used as a verfiable source when it is inaccurate. That is why the article was considerably shortened to prevent inaccurate POV information being repeatedly presented. That is why matters are discussed before editing. I am sure you realise that now Gwen Gale. Any reader of the current article will see that DNA testing exposed Anderson as a fraud. That is made quite clear. Finneganw 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that en.Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Moreover, as I said above, unless the article gives readers background as to how she fooled so many for so long, it will be misleading and harmful to readers (as it is now). If y'all don't want my help in making this article into something encyclopedic, ok, but the PoV language and lack of content are wholly unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bygone is NOT bygone, the attitude which caused the edit wars WILL return if you mods were to leave today. Nothing has changed Chat's mind or his desire to fill the article with info that tries to imply AA was Anastasia, and things now proven false and impossible by the DNA testing. We must do it the way Dr. Kay is doing it. I do not agree with everything that has happened here, but it appears to be the only way. Honestly Gwen you have never seen anything like what is going on here, it's been very extreme and strange and Dr's way is the only way we can hold this thing down.Aggiebean (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand this quite well. It is about accurate verifiability, not pushing inaccurate sources. This was highlighted by administrator Trusilver repeatedly. DrKay is doing a very good job in ensuring that the article is accurately verifiable and not full of so-called 'sources' that are openly ridiculed and proven to be completely inaccurate and unverifiable. Finneganw 17:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What? So wiki would rather have a source that is WRONG as long as you can verify it? That is what we are trying hard to avoid here! We will have them verifyable but we want them to be accurate too. In the case of AA, much of the previous source material is now inaccurate, obsolete and some of it proven to be complete fiction. That's not what you want in your articles, is it? I have always argued, just because you can put a page number to something does NOT necessarily make it a valid source.Aggiebean (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[6] Gwen pointed out that the fact that some were fooled into believing her should be included. DrKay (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure of draft

Let's get back to discussing Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle. One thing that came out of Gwen's edits, and the first thing I think we should address (let's not get into any other discussions for now), is whether the proposed structure is a good idea. I've been working on the assumption that this was the lead, and the rest of the article would follow section by section. Gwen's version actually transforms this version into the article by inserting sub-headings. So, the first paragraph becomes the lead. The second paragraph and first few sentences of the third paragraph become a section called "Claim" or "Claims". The third paragraph becomes the "DNA evidence" or "DNA tests" section. Do you prefer the structure with sub-headings or the structure without? DrKay (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the subject matter and all the problems we've had in the past, I think your way was working the best under the circumstances. The more we drag it out and try to draw attention to different categories the worse it will be. We need to stick to our original consensus of a very brief article, lead, DNA, pop culture, the end.Aggiebean (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there will be considerable issues if the article is once again broken down into sub-sections. That is one of the causes of problems that resulted in an edit war in the previous long winded article. The article needs to be concise. The main thrust of the article should be letting readers know in no uncertain terms that Anderson was an imposter. Her claim can be summed up in one sentence. It does not need to be expanded. What is important is that the DNA tests are quite clearly mentioned as they prove her claims were fraudulent from the very beginning and that she never ever was Anastasia and that she was Franziska Schankowska. I tend to think we were making progress here. I think going off on a tangent is not a sensible or good way to go. Finneganw 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just popping in, but I don't understand why it would be desirable to have "a very short article." I'm not an Anderson supporter - I'm perfectly well aware that she was not Anastasia and that she was (almost certainly) Franziska Schankowska. But this is not some kind of skeptics' dictionary, where our purpose is to debunk legends. The thrust of the article should be describing this woman's life, not "letting readers know in no uncertain terms that Anderson was an impostor" (although obviously the article should do that as well.) This is an article about a woman who became quite famous, and whose life has been written about at considerable length, even if much of that writing comes from untrustworthy sources. I don't see why on earth this article should exclude a detailed discussion of her life, as Aggiebean seems to suggest. Ideally, the article should, in a neutral way, tell the full story of her life, so far as we can gather it from reliable sources, and so long as it doesn't become excessively long. I think the means of starting out by getting consensus on the lead, and then moving on to other parts, makes sense. But Aggiebean and Finneganw seem to be saying that Anderson is only notable for the simple fact of her not being Anastasia. That seems ridiculous to me. The only reason anyone even bothered to do the DNA tests was because so many people were convinced she was Anastasia. The details of her imposture in the 20s and 30s, of the post-war court case, of her life in Germany and America, are all worth going into in the article. They should just be done in a responsible way. john k (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because what you suggest is IMPOSSIBLE, and the history of the article over the last several years proves this. As you know, I have written a very long and detailed website on AA, and I would originally have liked to have a long article, in fact I was a big contributor when it was long. However, as Finneganw pointed out and as I have seen to be true, the more we mention, the more will be contested, disputed, and worst of all edit warred ad nauseum into infinity. This was a constant circular motion for years, and it will not change due to Chat and other AA supporters trying to add, even in the form of POV vandalism and sneak attacks in the middle of sentences, discredited, fictional and very much questionable pro AA arguments, which, given the DNA results of 1994 and 2007, have proven her 'amazing memories' and other such alleged legends to be completely false. Anyone who doesn't understand is free to take a look at the very long and sordid history files of this article, and especially the archived talk pages, to see what a horrible mess it's been and how the only way we can avoid such trouble again is to whittle the article down to basics and never bring up things on which consensus will never be reached. I also must add that the poster JohnK may not be an "AA supporter" but he is a supporter of Alexei claimant Heino Tammet, which places him firmly in the same category, so consider that while reading his remarks.Aggiebean (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

First, on substance:If people are incapable of contributing constructively, they should be banned. Material that is inappropriate should be removed. This can certainly be difficult, but you don't own this article, and article content should not be determined by our fears of what POV pushers will do to it. And creating a short article is just an invitation for Anna Anderson supporters to create much worse articles as soon as you turn your back. The solution ought to be through disciplinary measures for POV pushers. And, again, the purpose of this article isn't to explain that she wasn't Anastasia. A single sentence could do that. The purpose of this article is to present a biography of the person best known to the world as Anna Anderson. That person did interesting things which our readers may be interested in and which should be described. This is not vitiated by a) the fact that she was not Anastasia; or b) the fact that there are still people who unaccountably believe that she was Anastasia and put stupid material on wikipedia to try to demonstrate that.

Second, on my supposed status as a supporter of Alexei claimant Heino Tammet: What on earth are you talking about? I've never contributed to the article Alexei Tammet-Romanov. I'd never even heard of Heino Tammet until you just mentioned him. I have no doubt that he was not Alexei, who perished with the rest of his family in Ekaterinburg. This is just a complete falsehood, made up, so far as I can tell, out of thin air. I ask that you please retract it. john k (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

More on this: I am not John Kendrick. I happen to be named John, and my last name begins with a K. I have no other connection to John Kendrick, who is apparently the author of a pro-Heino Tammet website. I am not he. john k (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't own the article, that's why the mods have taken it over and are helping us rebuild it via consensus. I personally do not agree with some of what has been done, but I realize it is the only way to keep peace here under the circumstances. As far as those who should be banned, Chat has done so much disruptive editing, sneak attacks, passing off his POV as sourced material posted by another that said nothing of what he said, and using only the discredited 'Harriet Rathlef' as a source, IMO he should have been banned long ago. I do not know why he is still here, considering his LONG history of sneaking in pro AA propaganda and POV vandalism, but he is, and he is being asked his opinion on the consensus, which I personally disagree with. I do not believe any AA supporter should ever be appeased due to the fact that they no longer have a 'side' because their POV has been proven wrong, which discredits much of the sourced material from the past alleging she was for real. So you see if I had my way in this article, it would be long, it would be completely Chat-free and give no appeasement at all to those who still believe in her and tout her story as valid, therefore, I do not 'own this article'. I do, however, 'own' my website, and there I do what I want if you want, which is very different from what I am able to do here. So you can bury that accusation. Again, Finneganw and I have been here long enough to know what the deal is, he longer than me, this mess was going on at least a year before I ever came here. Given the long past volatile history, this article is indeed a special case and extreme situation that cannot be dealt with as most other things have been, and Dr. and some of the other mods see this and understand it, and that's why things are the way they are. If you do not believe me you are free to read the past history files of the article and the talk page, especially the old archives, for proof.Aggiebean (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That whole long response, and you aren't willing to apologize for accusing me of being somebody that I'm not? That is really weak. john k (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake, he hangs around all claimant discussions. I hope you do understand now why we can't write a long article. It's been tried and rehashed for nearly 3 years, it can't work, not with this topic.Aggiebean (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So your position is that it is simply impossible for Wikipedia to have a good article about Anderson? Firstly, that is a complete cop-out. Once again, there are tools to deal with POV pushing. If we can have reasonably informative articles about things like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we ought to be able to have a reasonably informative article about Anna Anderson, whose supporters grow older and less numerous by the day. Secondly, the article isn't going to be semi-protected forever, and as soon as it's unprotected you're going to start having Anderson nuts adding nonsense to it. Much better to have a solid, well-structured article put together before that point. Otherwise you're just going to end up with the nutters gradually adding nonsense. Creating a small article doesn't solve any of the problems that you seem to think it will solve. Can I ask: is there a general consensus for a short article, or is that only something that Aggiebean and Finneganw support? john k (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

john k very few people are interested in Anderson since her fraud was exposed. Only rabid supporters want to keep their fantasy that she was Anastasia alive and will stop at nothing in their quest. I guess it takes all to make up a world. That is why there are basically no contributors to this page apart from those who know the reality of Anderson's proven fraud and those who try to deny it. Those who cannot accept her reality are still out there. Through DrKay's good graces and other administrators their avenues for spreading historical and scientific inaccuracy at wikipedia have been severely curtailed. Trust me that what you are proposing will not work. It never worked for years. Why should it work now? The so-called tools that you speak of have not worked in the past. If you examine the past history of the page that becomes quickly apparent. There are in fact very few contributors to the issue at all. What is interesting though is many of the rabid supporters have been banned from numerous other internet sites for pushing their discredited agendas. They now find that this site also does not encourage their unusual discredited viewpoints either. Finneganw 03:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What does the question of how many people are interested in her have to do with anything? Why would we expect to have contributors to this page who know nothing about Anderson (i.e., who would we expect to contribute here who isn't either an Anderson supporter or someone who knows she was a fraud?)? And, again, you are basically proposing that this article should be treated differently from every other article on Wikipedia - that its content be curtailed because, apparently uniquely among all subjects of human dispute, this subject so uniquely attracts nuts that we cannot have a decent article about it. We have a relatively lengthy article about Immanuel Velikovsky, for instance. Just like Anderson, Velikovsky attracts die-hard supporters who don't care that his claims have been utterly discredited, and they like trying to slant the article in their direction. I haven't read the article closely to see how well they've succeeded, but a quick glance shows that they are able to describe Velikovsky's theories, but also indicate that they are fringe and not believed by anyone other than cultists. Those who think Velikovsky is nonsense certainly haven't seen it as necessary to drastically curtail the article into a stub in order to defeat Velikovsky's supporters. john k (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry John, but there is really no need to even argue this. All of us who have been involved and the mods who've had to deal with it see how it is. We tried for over 2 years to have a long article, it DID NOT WORK and this has been proven. It's actually pointless to come here trying to preach to us when we have been through it all and know better. This is how it is, and we have not come to this conclusion briefly or lightly. Again, I challenge you to take the time to read the back history of the article and the archived talk pages and see what we mean.Aggiebean (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you are entirely misrepresenting the state of things. You and Finneganw support a short article that doesn't attempt to present a biography of AA. I see no evidence that anybody else agrees with you. Here's what DrKay said about two weeks ago: "She was a real person. She was born, she lived, she died. It's perfectly feasible to write a biography about her. It's completely unrealistic to expect the article to remain as short as it is now. However, we should finalize the lead before moving onto future sections." This seems completely sensible to me, and correct. As it stands now, the article is a complete failure at its primary job, which is to provide a biography of Anna Anderson. It basically says nothing about her life, and this is absurd, given how much has been written about her. john k (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K is in full agreement with a brief synopsis mentioning her claim, lawsuit and later life and death. He summed it up and that's what we have. If you want to get into the details of the claim, who said what, what she allegedly remembered when we now know she didn't, etc.. that is what has caused this article and talk page to be a war zone for nearly 3 years. I don't know why I can't get you to understand, no matter what you want it to be, or think it should be, it CANNOT BE due to the circumstances faced here. That is why things have come to what they are. How many times do I have to say this?Aggiebean (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we should let him speak for himself, but hev ery specifically said "It is completely unrealistic to expect the article to remain as short as it is now. However, we should finalize the lead before moving onto future sections." This suggests that, at some point, there will be "future sections" to move onto. The fact that he consistently refers to what is currently being worked on as "the lead" also suggests that he does not believe that this should be the whole article. But I'm sure he can explain himself what he meant, so let's move past that. Beyond that, I said nothing about talking about "what she allegedy remembered," although we should certainly talk about the people who believed her claim. I think we should talk about the narrative of her life - the development of her claim in the 20s, some of the encounters with the people who knew Anastasia best, the Grand Duke of Hesse's endeavor to discredit her and discovery of the Schankowska connection, the incredibly prolonged lawsuit, her life in Germany throughout that period, the move to Charlottesville and marriage, and so forth. I do not think we should include nonsensical conspiracy theories, but I think it should be possible to describe her life in a dispassionate way, and I don't see how having a stub is going to keep the Anderson supporters away. She had a long and interesting life which has been much written about. Obviously this can lead to POV disputes, and such, but the contention that we CANNOT have an actual article about her life is absurd and insupportable. john k (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ALL of those things were included in the article until very recently, and they all caused hopeless arguments, edit wars and POV vandalism until we had to delete it all and start over and know we could never get into that much detail. For the fiftieth time, READ THE HISTORY LOGS of this article and the talk page and you will know what transpired, and what repeatedly happened and why we CANNOT HAVE A DETAILED ARTICLE! For example, the quotes and intentions of Olga Alexandrovna have been quoted, misinterpreted, and very much argued over. Same with Ernie, Gilliard, etc. I am tired of arguing with you over this, if you won't accept my word for it just look at the history!!!!!!!!!!!!Aggiebean (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to try to expand the article to about the recommended article size: 30 to 50 kB, but would prefer it to be near the low end of that range. There is no way it should get bloated to around 100 kB, which it was before blanking. I think we may be able to achieve this if we are strict about removal of irrelevant or POV or unsourced material, and do not use lengthy quotes from primary sources. Anyway, I think it's worth a try even if it's ultimately unsuccessful and we have to keep the article short. I've also been secretly drafting a "Biography" section, so I would at least want to try running it by you at some point. I've been keeping it under wraps because I think we're agreed that we should take things fairly slowly and just expand bit by bit for the moment. Otherwise, we may get bogged down in a wide-ranging discussion like before. However, I'd be happy to paste it into the proposed article if people prefer to see it.

I've amended the Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle once again to address Finneganw's points. Specifically:

1. "best known" is added to the first sentence
2. "Kashubian" changed to "Polish"; I can't find any source that she was Kashubian ethnically.
3. "well-known" is changed to "notoriety"
4. the asylums/sanatoria sentence is changed to: "Between 1922 and 1968, Anderson lived in the United States and Germany with various supporters and in sanatoria and nursing homes, including at least one asylum." I really can only find sources to support one asylum stay between those years. I am unable to find a source that calls the wing of the institution at Ilten in which she lived an asylum.
5. Can I assume that with Prince Philip in the DNA evidence section, we can leave him out of the lead?

Can I ask once again to either express approval for the lead, or make comments on how it could be improved. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Aggiebean, I wholeheartedly agree with John. There are hundreds of articles with more conflict-ridden histories than AA, yet all of those articles have managed to survive as non-stubs. I understand your past frustrations, but a cop out is simply not the way to go. You have more individuals involved now, and I'm sure they would all be glad to help expand this article to a respectable length. Shall we give it a try? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, I would have liked a long detailed article, and I wrote a very long website on her. However here on wiki it is impossible due to the personalities and attitudes involved (AA supporters, mainly Chat) If it goes into detail, it will only be one big headache, torture us all for a long time and nothing will be resolved. A brief article is not what I want, it's what is necessary for this subject due to everything else we've tried failing miserably and causing constant edit wars. Does anyone recall that the reason this article was turned over to the mods was because of endless edit wars over content? The same thing will happen again if the AA supporters are allowed to participate. The whole reason we gave up, deleted everything but the lead and tried to rebuild in a condensed version is that the trouble that happened over the last 3 years isn't suddenly going to stop or change now. All the evidence is in the history logs. Honestly, Chat's long history of POV vandalism and sneak attacks should have gotten him banned from working on the article, but as long as he's around, things will remain the same. Aggiebean (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that Aggiebean is right in what she has stated. Due to the fact that what Anderson and her supporters put forward was never at all true I tend to think it is impossible to write accurate fully verifiable information about Anderson. Wikipedia does not support inaccurate unverifiable POV articles. Any article which tries to put in the inaccurate information Anderson tried to foist on the unsuspecting is not verifiable NPOV. Anderson consistently claimed to be somebody she never was. Her whole pathetic attempt was seen through by a great many long before she died. Her fantasy claim was fraud. DNA evidence solidly proved this to be the case. All in all she was a very insignificant person who did a lot of damage to the reputation of the real Grand Duchess Anastasia who was so terribly and brutally murdered. Thankfully since Anderson's total exposure as a fraud, attention has now shifted back on to the real Grand Duchess Anastasia who had a far more interesting and important life as one of the last Grand Duchesses of Imperial Russia. After all she never attempted to be anybody she never was and information on her life is fully verifiable. Finneganw 15:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What's your point here? I am not advocating "trying to put in the inaccurate information Anderson tried to foist on the unsuspecting," but verifiable details about her life, of which there are plenty. And you may think Anastasia's life was the more intereesting one, but that's really just an opinion - AA's life was a pretty bizarre and fascinating one, it has interested a large number of people over the years, and certainly there's a lot more to say about her than about Anastasia, who died at age 17, and whose notability effectively rests on who her parents were and her horrible murder, rather than any actual accomplishments of her own. We have a quite long and detailed article about Anastasia - 53 K - in spite of this fact. Given that Schankowska/Anderson lived for roughly four times as long as her, and did actual things which are not covered in any other article on wikipedia, an actual detailed article on her in the range DrKay says above (30 to 50K) seems totally appropriate and achievable. john k (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You may not advocate it, but if the article is long, and if AA supporters are allowed to contribute, that is exactly what's going to happen- again.Aggiebean (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you now have something that you didn't have before: administrator attention. I'm sure Dr. Kay, John Kenney and I can handle POV pushing from AA supporters. On an aside, it is indeed our role to detail in length the mainstream view that AA≠FS, but it is also our responsibility to describe notable events that transpired in this woman's life. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem Finneganw and I have with describing her 'life' is that it wasn't her life, it was pretending to be Anastasia. We have included the main events, suicide attempt, lawsuit, marriage to Manahan, death, and disproven by DNA. All the rest of the story is tainted horribly by the fictional and embellished writings of supporters like Rathlef and Botkin and do not belong in a factual article. Now that she has been proven a fake, the article needs to reflect that fact and give no value or appeasement to any 'mystery' that is no longer there. Aggiebean (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that none of what Anderson claimed about herself after her suicide attempt ever happened. That is why it cannot be included in the article as it is completely fabricated invention. Wikipedia is about fact not fantasy. Anderson's claim was never true ever. That has been totally proven repeatedly. It's very easy to understand unless a person is a rabid Anderson is Anastasia supporter. Anderson supporters should perhaps have an Anderson in Wonderland page to perpetuate their fantasies. Their inaccurate disproven nonsense certainly has no place in this article. Finneganw 21:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It is a fact, of course, that Anderson made the claims that she did, and it's a fact that other people believed her and championed those claims. David Hampton was not actually Sidney Poitier's son, but our article on him still talks about how he pretended to be that. Anderson's story has been detailed in numerous books, and of course a summary of it should be relayed. I'll add that I wasn't even talking about her claims about events between 1918-1920, but rather that the article should discuss her life between 1922 and 1984, which of course is heavily documented. john k (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that Anderson's 'life' is heavily 'documented' with 'sources' that have been totally discredited. As such they are completely unverifiable and as Admin Trusilver pointed out, they have no place at wikipedia. I suggest JohnK that you do reading on the discussion that has taken place here. It is all archived. Pushing fake information about Anderson/Schankowska has been excluded. Finneganw 12:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

John never suggested that. He agrees with you that Anderson was an imposter, and the article should deal with facts.

This thread is not getting us anywhere, and I know from experience that it will just go round and round and round. I suggest that editors refocus their comments on the proposed content. DrKay (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact he did, because to add the things he wants to add, you are going to have to depend on the discredited tales of Botkin and Rathlef, which have now been downgraded to fiction. As Finneganw stated, the 'fascinating' things she allegedly did, and 'why people believed her for so long' is all based on lies, because it did not and could not have happened the way it was portrayed. We know for a fact she was never in Imperial Russia and obviously got her info from emigres and books, however, since there is no source stating that (other than the DNA proof) we cannot put it in the article, and the story will fall, as we fear, into the realm of the fantasy and play right into the hands of the AA supporters. See, there is much written by supporters, but very little written against her since the tests, and literally nothing written after the 2007 tests, so while we know for a fact what we say is true, there is nothing to source it to, therefore, the article could not include those statements and leaving it as it was would leave the impression that everything went her way except the DNA- leaving questions on the DNA, and this is exactly what the AA supporters want for the impression of the article, though not in so many words, certainly in message. This is why we must avoid all those old tales because they couldn't have actually happened, and it's wrong to tell them as fact just because you can source them to Kurth. Also, when you get into telling 'both sides' (which I believe to be wrong since there no longer is a mystery or a 'side' for AA's cause) you get the long, drawn out article, longer than the one for Christ, with endless edit wars, insertations, vandalism and tit for tat quote matching. If we could do this without the imput of any AA supporter, it might work, but I doubt you're going to keep them away, therefore, we stand right back where we started, unless we agree to go with the brief article as we had planned. If you think this thread is going in circles, you ain't seen nuthin' yet, until you try to write a long article with me, finneganw, chat and bookworm.15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of people who have written about her without being supporters. Massie, obviously. Just a quick look at Amazon reveals Frances Welch's A Romanov Fantasy, which looks to be a very skeptical account of Anderson's life from only two years ago. a Perhaps this would be an acceptable source? At any rate, basically your whole problem seems to be that if you can't draw implications yourself, you don't trust your readers to. If the article is clear that Anderson cannot have been Anastasia (due to the DNA tests), then of course any intelligent reader can infer that there must have been coaching, and what not, to explain her apparent memories - and I highly, highly doubt that nobody anywhere has ever written about that, anyway - this is an excuse. This will be my last remark on the subject, although Welch's book looks like it ought to be massively useful. john k (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things I asked you to do before we argued was to look at my website to see what I'd do with this article if I could, and to review the sordid history of the article and talk page. You have obviously done neither, so you continue to misunderstand me and my intentions. If you did look at my site, you will see I made great use of Massie's and Welch's books as references. You would also have seen in the page history that those 2 books were used extensively in the long version of the article, and we still have enormous trouble with the AA supporters. What I mean by no sources for what we need is nothing written since the missing bones were identified- final results were march 2009- and nothing stating in so many words that she got her info from books and emigres. We can say Olga A. thought that, or it is obvious considering the way things turned out, but no proof of who or when (though I feel Rathlef and Botkin are very guilty, Rathlef even encourages her to 'remember' and 'if you are right I'll tell you' how would she know unless she had oodles of resources on the family? So clearly she helped her, but proving it in a sourced article is impossible) As I have asked many times, if you would please, please review the past history of this article, you will see what Finneganw and I mean about it not working. It really does no good to keep telling us how it could work when we have been through it all and know better. And no, I'm sorry, I do not give the average person enough credit to be able to put two and two together, you would be surprised at how lame brained some people are and will only gather 'wow how did she know if it wasn't her?' Also you disregard the strong desire by some to believe the mystery and how they may grasp at any straw to hold onto it. My goal from the beginning here was to completely bury the last vestiges of any question or mystery as to her identity, lock the door, throw away the key, nail the coffin closed and bury it. We can't do that if we get into all those petty details. Again, the history proves this, time and time again. There are hundreds of previous edits if you would only take a look and see what we mean instead of continuing to lecture on why we are wrong when we know we aren't. With all due respect Finneganw and I are the voice of experience on this subject and article so please believe us.Aggiebean (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have certainly read over your website, although I didn't look closely at the footnotes. As I think I may have briefly said before, I think it's got a lot of useful material, but that it is weak in many of the areas I have been suggesting that this article needs to be improved on - in particular, if I'm not mistaken, it doesn't provide any kind of chronological narrative of AA's life between 1922 and 1933 or so, and the facts of the period of AA's life when she was most famous have to be pieced together. I haven't looked too closely at the old versions of the article, but I have read it over occasionally over the years. In terms of "what we need," I don't see how we need any of those things. In the first place, there are tons of journalistic sources about the discovery of the bones, which is, at any rate, not all that important to begin with since we've known for certain since 1997 that whether or not Anastasia may have survived, Anna Anderson was not her, so I don't see why that's so important. In the second place, we simply don't need anything "stating in so many words that she got her info from books and emigrés." This is because there is, of course, no direct evidence that she got her info from books and emigrés. This is simply an inference that anybody can make from the fact that a) she seemed to know stuff about Anastasia's life; and b) we know that she had never been in Russia and was not Anastasia. If we can cite primary sources like Olga Alexandrovna who actually explicitly say that this is what they believed, that makes the case more strongly. There is no need for the article to accuse Botkin or Rathlef of lying and purposefully coaching her, something which, at any rate, we can't know for certain that they did - look at Clever Hans, for instance, whose trainer had no idea that the whole thing was a fraud, even though he was giving the horse the cues. Botkin, Rathlef, and whoever else may have been conscious frauds - your website makes a decent, but not overwhelming, case that they were. But there's simply not enough evidence to say for certain - there's a whole lot of speculation on such issues on your website, but not too much in the way of fact. The fact that people wish to believe in her is really not our concern here - the wikipedia article is never going to convince such people anyway. And the purpose of this article is not, of course, "to completely bury the last vestiges of any question or mystery as to her identity, lock the door, throw away the key, nail the coffin closed and bury it," (a procedure which would, unfortunately, seem to leave you locked in the room with the corpse, which might be an apt metaphor...). It is to produce a quality encycloepdia article about a notable individual. A huge part of the problem here seems to be that you and finneganw do not believe that is the purpose of the article, but rather that the article's only purpose is to convince people she was not Anastasia. This is both futile and not helpful to the surely numerous readers who, I'm sure, are interested in learning more about this woman than the barest facts and a detailed discussion of DNA test results. john k (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My site was never intended to be a chronological narrative of her life. That's not what it's about. The point of it is to explain the 'other side' (Anti-AA) so ignored in writings by supporters, and try to show how and why she was a fraud all along. I examine various aspects and situations of her story, and especially the long standing myths and the truth behind them. I also offer common sense and logical deductions to explain away all the questions, which of course is not allowed here. I did not mean for the article to mirror my site, it is something different, and is in no way neutral, purposely. There is too much pro AA stuff out there, I was trying to balance the load. But it's not a biography and should not be taken as such.

Obviously your website can be about whatever you want it to be about. The point was that you were just presenting it as a model for what you would like this article to look like, if not for problems with pro-Anderson editors. ("As you know, [I, of course, did not know, since this was when you thought I was John Kendrick] I have written a very long and detailed website on AA, and I would originally have liked to have a long article, in fact I was a big contributor when it was long," you said. Then "As I have said before, I would have liked a long detailed article, and I wrote a very long website on her. However here on wiki it is impossible due to the personalities and attitudes involved." Then "Two things I asked you to do before we argued was to look at my website to see what I'd do with this article if I could" On my talk page: "And if you want to see what I'd put in a long article check out my website, Anna Anderson Exposed.") Given that, I looked at your website and gave my assessment - lots of useful information, but problematic in some ways as a model for what an article here should look like. Now, of course, after I point those things out, you say "I did not mean for the article to mirror my site." But clearly that is what you were implying before, repeatedly. john k (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Another issue you need to realize is that AA herself never tried to convince anyone, it was all the work of supporters. It is very likely that the mentally ill woman was used by opportunists and she just went along for the ride, having all her expenses paid. Sure beat life as FS. She never even took the stand in her own defense during her trial. Again if you look at the history you will see what all transpired in the past and why we can't try those things again. It's actually become rather insulting that you continue to preach the same things we are telling you won't work and not believe us.Aggiebean (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were her lawyers, I wouldn't have wanted her to take the stand, either. That obviously would have been a total disaster. As for insulting, please. You seem to find it insulting that I continue to disagree with you. That's absurd. Look, I've read a fair bit of the history of the article. But it's quite evident that you and finneganw are something approaching half the problem here. You have the advantage over the Anderson supporters in that your POV is based on actual fact, and not delusional nonsense, like theirs. But you don't seem to be any more interested in creating a neutral article. john k (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no mystery at all over Anderson. She was Schankowska and wasted most of her life pretending to be somebody she never was. That is the sign either of a con artist or a truly mentally ill woman. Really it is all very pathetic and uninteresting. She never had any memories as she was not Anastasia. She was fed information from unscrupulous others who did make money out of her. Quite often she was shown up for the fraud she was as she couldn't even get the information accurate. The only mystery is why so-called intelligent people chose to be conned by such an obvious fraud. The answer is they wanted to believe the fantasy or had financial motives. Her whole fraud has been completely shattered though and the reality exposed. Basically nothing Anderson claimed was ever true. That is why it cannot be included in the article as the article must be accurate and verifiable. Finneganw 01:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not the one who gets to decide whether the subject is interesting or not. Obviously many people do find her interesting. Obviously, you find it interesting, given that you seem to devote a huge amount of time to it. You also demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of how Wikipedia articles work when you say that because Anderson's claims were untrue, they can't be included in the article. Obviously, they can't be treated as though they are themselves descriptions of real things. But this isn't how things work. If somebody is famous for being a liar, or delusional, we can describe their documented lies and delusions in the wikipedia article. Again, David Hampton was not Sidney Poitier's son, but we can still mention in his article that he claimed to be, and other details of his various lies. Clifford Irving did not ghost-write Howard Hughes' autobiography, but we can still describe all the lies that Irving put forward in his fraudulent claim to have done so. Emperor Norton was a lunatic whose various decrees had no relationship with reality, but we can still describe them in a neutral manner. If lies and delusions are documented in reliable sources, we can of course discuss them in Wikipedia. john k (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't find her at all interesting - very few do. I just find her attempts at fraud rather pathetic. Only rabid supporters have any interest in her. I doubt you will find any credible sources on her. The ones supporters relied on have been totally discredited and have been agreed to not be used in the article as they are unverifiable. By the way going off on a tangent is irrelevant to the content of the discussion. It would seem you have a curious interest in frauds. Finneganw 08:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a misapplication of Wikipedia terminology here. Accuracy and verifiability refer solely to the proper attribution of text to reliable sources. No one here denies that Anderson was a complete and utter fraud. However, the falsities from Anderson's life were what made her notable, and as such, we can thoroughly describe them in the article, under the provision that we state that these were all a bunch of lies. I think the only way to present this article is to state Anderson and her supporters' claims and then offer a refutation of these claims. Simply ignoring the claims originally made by her supporters (which lends a lot of credence to her notability) is going to make this article very one-sided. Remember, our role here is not to debunk falsity. We're here to present a subject in a neutral manner, and in this particular case, note how the mainstream world has confirmed that Anderson was indeed a fraud. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean presenting information that is blatantly untrue. It means presenting fact without taking a side. There was never any fact to Anderson's claims. They were inaccurate from the beginning. Presenting her fraud as fact actually is POV as it never existed. It is not remaining neutral. We have tried to present previously Anderson's fraud and it has always been perverted and distorted to appear as reality. When her fraud has been refuted it has always been denied by her supporters. That is what caused the edit war. It was always an edit war caused by those who wished to continue her fraud presnting POV rather than a balanced factual article. IF an attempt is made to present her fraud, the heading must clearly be marked as. Anderson never had any memories, was never Anastasia, never went to Russia, could never speak Russian and so forth. She has been totally disproved and that is accurate verifiable fact. Her nonsense remains fraud. I cannot see the article remaining under 50K if any attempt is made to present her fraud and then present the fact. Remember it was nearly 100K previously when such an attempt was made previously. It didn't work. Finneganw 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, this is absurd. Neither Nishkid nor I is suggesting that we "present her fraud as fact." We are suggesting that we describe the details of her fraud (or delusion), while making clear that it was a fraud (or delusion). I gave several examples of comparable situations in my previous post as bases of comparison. And, again, nobody cares that you allegedly don't find her interesting (if she's so dull, again, why do you spend so much time ranting about her? For instance, I find Chuck Grassley to be quite dull, so I don't spend much time ranting about his article on wikipedia). Your personal interest in a subject matter is not a measure of its notability. john k (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

John, you may not intend to present fraud as fact, but if you accept that bogus information like the 'that was Papa's sister' quote and other fiction by harriet rathlef should be included in the article, that is exactly what you would be doing.Aggiebean (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, why does the fact that she was not Anastasia mean she could not have recognized Olga from pictures? Especially since she'd been pretending to be Anastasia for three years before she met Olga. And she'd had a whole conversation with Olga before she supposedly said that - presumably she could have figured out who it was from contextual clues and the like (if not from Olga actually saying who she was) over the course of the conversation. Could you explain why this comment is supposed to be impossible? Beyond that, sources like Rathlef, Lovell, Kurth are obviously very dubious, and would need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, but that doesn't mean they should be entirely excluded. At the very least, the article ought to contain a summary of works that have been written about Anna Anderson, and what they said. john k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't from pictures. The 'is that the aunt' vs. 'she's papa's sister' incident occured when Olga actually came to visit and walked into the room. Olga relayed that she whispered to the nurses in German 'is that the aunt' and Rathlef claimed she said 'that's Olga she's papa's sister'. If this was true, why did Olga say she didn't recognize her? Another time, she mistook Shura (Gilliard's wife) for Olga. Rathlef did not tell you these things, and supporters like Kurth tell it from a pro AA standpoint and will have you believe Olga and Gilliard were "liars" out to 'discredit' her because of money. Really, Rathlef's writings must be totally disregarded, since almost everything she writes contradicts directly with other versions by people who turned out to be right. I could give many examples if you don't mind me taking up space. It's been reduced to fiction and should not be used in a factual article. You need to realize that the vast majority of the public coming here to read this article does not know they are 'dubious' sources and if this article gives them value by using them as sources the readers will have no reason so suspect they are wrong. This story is not as common knowledge to 95% or more of people as it is for us, so don't take it for granted they know what we know. They'll be reading it because they don't know, and many of them will be students learning about AA for the first time. We owe them the truth and the end of the fantasy once and for all!Aggiebean (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Change of Header

The change of header is excellent. It alerts editors that discussion is essential before random editing. Thanks very much DrKay. Finneganw 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article put forward by DrKay

I think you have done well DrKay. I am glad your proposal concentrates on verifiable fact and makes no mistake in representing the real identity of Anna Anderson. Thank you for your input. It works well. Finneganw 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's fine the way it is. Too much info will only lead to more arguments and edit wars and after years of that we know it doesn't work. Look at World Book Encyclopedia, even articles on Nicholas II and Rasputin, they are very brief, though there was much more to their stories and lives. This is an article, not a book.Aggiebean (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I think I'm going to press on with the proposed article by adding the next draft section on popular culture. I've taken into account the Wikipedia:Trivia sections guidelines, so I've removed mention of the songs, and not mentioned the straight-to-DVD animations as I really couldn't find anything notable to say about them. I've tried to focus the section on how Anderson was portrayed in fiction. DrKay (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing 'notable' about those off brand "Anastasia" DVDs, however, two of them actually follow parts of the AA story, including two using the cart tale and one even Alexander Tchiakovsky, something that the more famous Don Bluth video does not do. That version mentions absolutely nothing about AA and the story is totally different from AA's, in it, it has an eight year old Anastasia separated from her family during a 1916 revolution led by Rasputin (which of course never happened) and she leaves an orphanage 10 years later. There is no element of Anderson's story at all in the Don Bluth cartoon (which is, BTW, most often mistakingly called "Disney")other than the part about trying to pass her off to the Dowager Empress for money, which many claimants hoped to do. The 1997 cartoon really isn't AA's story, other than generally being a claimant.Aggiebean (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, in the external links, we should really remove the site "Anastasia: Duchess in Disguise" since it is only a main page and nothing else as the link provided for the "HIH Anastasia Historical Society"(http://www.concentric.net/~tsarskoe/) is a site that no longer exists. It has been deleted by its author, who no longer believes in AA. (I have spoken to him personally and know this to be true) Also, in Oct. all Geocities sites will shut down, and it will then become a totally dead link. Since there's nothing there anyway, it might as well be eliminated now.Aggiebean (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1997 cartoon arguably isn't even about Anastasia, or about the Russian Revolution, or anything tied very well to real history at all. Wasn't it loosely based on the 1956 movie, though? And the 1956 movie was loosely based on Anderson? john k (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said to exclude it, only not to exclude the other cartoons which were based on AA's story while this one was not.Aggiebean (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If some of you had to suffer and deal with the long drawn out headaches and annoyances that Finneganw and I did every day with this article for so long, you would understand why we are so against going into detail with it all again. On the surface it may look like a good idea, but please believe us, it's not.Aggiebean (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added something about the other cartoons, and to do so I had to add the story about leaving Russia on a cart.[7] DrKay (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the following:

Coincident with the release of the films, a version of Anderson's story, entitled Ich, Anastasia, Erzähle (I, Anastasia, an autobiography), was published in Germany. The book begins with the life of Anastasia, and continues with the extraordinary claim that she escaped Russia on a farm cart with a man called Alexander Tschaikovsky, whom she married and had a child by, before he was shot dead in a Bucharest street and the child, Alexei, disappeared into an orphanage. This "fantastic tale" is considered a fable. Anderson's supporters said the claims "might seem bold inventions even for a dramatist", and her detractors considered "this barely credible story as a piece of far-fetched romance".

My understanding was that this (cart, Tchaikovsky, etc.) was Anderson's own story of how she supposedly escaped from Ekaterinburg. If so, this isn't at all made clear by the proposed text. john k (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DrKay is 100% correct in his description. It was fable as it never ever happened. It was complete fabrication. Her so-called autobiography was not even written by her. All in all a rather pathetic fraud. Finneganw 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The story was not "Anderson's own", looking at the history of how it evolved, the cart story was originally invented by Baron von Kleist. An earlier different version by Clara Peuthert featured a trip to Paris with unknown assailants in pursuit. The details changed several times as she took up with various emigres', and was finally honed to the present version by Harriet Rathlef. There were also differing versions of the baby's name, birthdate, and what happened to him. The history of the changing of the story is covered, with references, on my site so I won't take up space here.Aggiebean (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I understand that the events described never occurred. But why does it matter whether AA wrote I, Anastasia herself? Most non-writers' autobiographies are ghost-written. Why does it matter who originally came up with the story? Anderson herself told it and claimed it was the truth, right? So it was "her own story of how she supposedly escaped from Ekaterinburg," no matter who originally made it up. The point is that the text does not make clear that I, Anastasia was an (ostensible) autobiography. It describes it as "a version of Anderson's story," and notes that the title included "an autobiography," but the implication is left open that it is a work of fiction. You guys' obsession with not giving an inch to Anderson supporters seems to involve insisting that the article be confusing and potentially misleading. john k (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See, this is where we start to run into problems and differences. We do not know it was her own story, in fact, the details and evidence point to it being invented and embellished by others. We do know the story wasn't true, but it does matter if she made it up or if others helped her. Because of all the doubt, it's wrong to put it in the article claiming she invented it, we don't even know that she told it. Say von Kleist made it up. He's not going to say that, he's going to say she told him, but there is no proof. Since it is very much in question, it should not be stated as truth. It DOES matter that she didn't write "I, Anastasia." Parts of it were taken directly from other books, such as Anna V's account of the Riga trip, and the events of daily life in Tobolsk taken directly from "Last Days of the Romanovs" by Robert Wilton. Of course the book doesn't admit to this, but when you match up the original and paraphrased versions, it becomes painfully obvious. No, we should not give any inch to Anderson supporters, any more than the 9-11 article should give an inch to conspiracy theorists, other than to say that such theories exist. Nothing is more misleading than allowing the fiction invented by Anderson and her supporters to be passed as fact, or even allowed to be presumed as possible fact by readers. John you are starting to give yourself away as one of those who wants the AA supporter story told from that POV (though you claim not to believe in her and may not, that is how you are now coming across) For years, the problem has been that this myth perpetuated because people found it more interesting and fun than the truth. It's time to stop that and state the cold hard facts to the reading public, with no room for questions or games.Aggiebean (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How about changing "a version of Anderson's story" to "Anderson's ghostwritten story"? DrKay (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have already mentioned DrKay who wrote it and that it was not Anderson. Aggiebean is correct though. 'I, Anastasia' was never Anderson's story. It was written by others in a pathetic attempt to try and assist her legal case. It was total fabrication as it is fact that Anderson was Schankowska and never Anastasia. The work was pure invention and very poor invention at that. Of course Anderson supporters have always tried to be misleading otherwise the reality comes out and they have never been able to cope with that. Sadly John K seems to be a rabid Anderson is Anastasia supporter making very little positive suggestions on developing the article. He seems more interesting in pushing his POV discredited opinions. I guess he must have been somewhere else when the DNA evidence finally exposed Anderson as a total fraud. Finneganw 08:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As you're more interested in insulting other editors than answering my question, I'm going to take your response as a yes. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DrKay repeating my answer from above as you appear to have missed it.:

Dr Kay is 100% correct in his description. It was fable as it never ever happened. It was complete fabrication. Her so-called autobiography was not even written by her. All in all a rather pathetic fraud. Finneganw 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC) It was a "version" but clearly not an autobiography as it was never written by her. Finneganw 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is true it was not written by her, it is common knowledge.Aggiebean (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"A version" is fine with me. It was a version, of which there were many, and it doesn't mention who originally made it up since we really don't know. Also, the 'autobiography' isn't the original source of the cart story, (it had been around since the spring of 1922 and had been mentioned in other writings) so it shouldn't be described as such.Aggiebean (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

FinneganW, I'm warning you to knock of the personal attacks. WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Her 'story'

I've been checking the sources I have available for what they say about the escape story. Massie calls it her story. Klier (p 96) says: "The von Kleists affirmed that Anna told them...This fantastic tale developed many variations, which grew in the telling. Different versions of key events, such as the birthdate of her son, would never be proved or disproved." Kurth (p. 34) says "Zinaida Tolstoy...was the first to hear "The Story," or parts of it. She reported the details...to Baron von Kleist, who in turn drew up a number of protocols and invented for Anastasia a flowing, first-person narrative that bore no resemblance to her actual speech...Anastasia's indignation knew no limit when she heard about the Baron's "lies." Alexis! she exclaimed. She had never called her child Alexis..." DrKay (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes her 'story' changed as often and as many times as the wind blows. It's hardly surprising as you know as none of it ever happened. That is why it will be very difficult to ever record her 'story' or should I say 'stories'. They really no longer matter as none of them ever happened except in her poor tortured mind and in the minds of those who wanted to use her to make money out of her. I think we could go way over 100K recording all of it and still there would be more to add. That is the reasons why it is better not to record any of it and refer people who might be interested to a further reading section. Finneganw 10:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You know she 'claimed' so much nonsense. As DrKay records one such tale that said she claimed she gave birth to the son in Bucharest. There is no evidence she was ever in Bucharest. There is also no record of any son. Certainly the real Anastasia would have gone straight to the Royal Palace for refuge with her first cousin once removed, Queen Marie of Romania who would have welcomed her with open arms. Of course Marie would have known Anderson/Schankowska as a fraud. That is why Maria is conveniently omitted. Anderson claimed Marie would have been shocked by her having an illegitimate child which of course is more nonsense as Marie was known for her dalliances. Marie's own son Carol also had an illegitimate son so Marie was hardly a stranger to any of this. The more one investigates Anderson the more ridiculous and sadly laughable she becomes. The nonsense just goes on and on. The books DrKay refers to go on for hundreds and hundreds of pages together. How can any of her claims be recorded here and not go way over 100K? Who is to say what to put in and what not to? Then if the reality is presented as others have suggested it would need to be it goes further on and on. Finneganw 11:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the argument about length will get anywhere until the page is over 32 kb (see Wikipedia:Article size), but once it reaches that the argument about length will gain greater support. Once the article grows, then the length argument will start to gain adherents as articles which are too long are often unwieldy, contain off-topic digressions, or emphasize minor details which are unnecessarily expanded. These are the sorts of arguments that people will understand and agree with when complaining about an article's size.

So, I think it worth saying "her 'autobiography' is unreliable, here's an example", but once we've said that and given one example, it's unnecessary to give any others (see Template:Example farm). Pointing out every bit in the book which is wrong is just unnecessary repetition of the same fundamental point ("the book is unreliable"). Therefore, I favor the addition of "the story", but I don't favor any further expansion of it, or any further discussion of the book. DrKay (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course she was never in Bucharest. Your point about Queen Marie is confusing - Schankowska was never in Bucharest, so it doesn't matter whether Queen Marie would have known Schankowska was a fraud. She'd only have been in Bucharest if she was the real Anastasia. But, at any rate, you seem to be continuing to misunderstand what is proposed here. Nobody is suggesting saying that Anna Anderson was rescued from the Ipatiev House by a soldier named Alexander Tchaikovsky, was taken to Bucharest in a cart, and that she then bore a child. We are suggesting saying that this was how Anna Anderson explained her own story. Just as we describe Clifford Irving's purported meetings with Howard Hughes, which also never happened. Or, I'll add, just as we describe the plot of Great Expectations, which also, you know, never really happened. That you cannot comprehend so elementary a point speaks a great deal as to your competency to offer useful comments on anything having to do with this article. As far as I, Anastasia, I think its discussion in this section is a bit odd - it seems like we should have a section devoted to what's been written about Anna Anderson, including stuff by supporters like Rathlef's writings, I, Anastasia, Lovell and Kurth's biographies, and so forth, as well as anti stuff like Gilliard's book and more modern works like Massie's and Welch's. Especially on a subject like this, explaining the sources seems worthwhile. john k (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a section expounding on how she is portrayed in biographies as well as fiction, but are there any reliable sources explaining the problems with the pro-Anderson books? The reviews on them may be out-dated and instead of pointing out problems may say how well-researched they are and be quite complimentary. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Dr., there aren't, and those who support a pro AA POV know this and that is why they try so hard to extend the article mentioning various details of her alleged 'amazing' 'memories', etc., because they KNOW we don't have an official source to refute it (other than just common sense due to the DNA) This is why I am so against going into detail on the story. They can add all that crap from supporters, and leave it hanging there like a documented proof, but we have nothing to source to say it was wrong, because as far as I know there is nothing outright saying it other than my site, maybe a little on Godl's, and a a book in the works that will not be out for another year or two.

For a thorough examination of her 'story' and how it changed many times, with documenation to original sources, go to the 'how the legend began' part of my site http://www.freewebs.com/anna-anderson/howthelegendbegan.htm and scroll down to "The 'Escape' story". You will see the whole mess there, and I won't have to take up room posting it all here.Aggiebean (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Welch doesn't discuss any problems with such books? There aren't any articles on the subject that do? I am highly dubious of this contention. At any rate, I don't know how important it is to "point out the problems," per se. We can note that Lovell's and Kurth's books are based on the premise that Anderson was Anastasia. That alone suffices to make them problematic in the eyes of most people, I think. Again, we know that Anderson was not Anastasia. So why are we the ones on the defensive here? john k (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Welch never says in so many words. The only thing she does is make comparisons between Gleb Botkin's novel 'The Baron's Fancy" and how the AA story played out, very similar, making it appear this means she believes Gleb part of the fraud, but never says so in a quotable sentence. I was also very disappointed that much of the first half of her book is written based on Gleb's books, telling the Romanov story and his story from his POV, much of which is in serious doubt considering he wrote two books telling why AA was Anastasia, and it's all been proven wrong. I ignore that part, because I give it no more value than Gleb himself.Aggiebean (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that 'we' know means nothing to the article. The people who will be looking up this article to read will mostly be wondering about her, and if there is any tiny bit of hope to hold into that it was her, some of them will because they want to. The facts and reality are she wasn't, but if you leave any allusion to possible mystery or 'how did she know' there will be many who will fall for the myth again and that is what the AA supporters want. This is why, as I said, I want the door nailed shut. Earlier on this page, we had come to the agreement not to use anything written by Botkin or Rathlef since it has been totally disproven. I certainly hope this hasn't changed with the addition of you. Really, please tell me why you would want something blatantly false in the article, especially if there is no source to list it as such, though we know it is but can't openly prove it with references? This is the kind of thing that makes me believe you are on the AA supporters side. While I have been told you are not a 'meatpuppet' for them, I do find very it strange you suddenly appeared after having nothing to do with the article for years, and that the AA supporters, bookworm and Chat, have vanished to let you do the talking, yet you espouse the very things they want to do that we fought against. No, I would never consent, if that even matters anymore, to ANYTHING traced to Rathlef or Botkin, because they were supporters who were embellishing to help her cause and all their nonsense has been disproven.Aggiebean (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The people who will be looking up this article to read will mostly be wondering about her, and if there is any tiny bit of hope to hold into that it was her, some of them will because they want to. So what? This is not our responsibility. The purpose of this article is not to convince the most fantasy-prone individuals among our readership that she was not Anastasia. That is a fool's errand. The purpose is to provide an overview of her life. As far as what sources to use, what I think is that the article probably ought to closely follow Welch's book, since that is an extensive, well-reviewed, recent biography of Anderson which was written by someone who did not believe she was Anastasia. In more-respected academic encyclopedias and the like, the editors will often get someone who has written in detail on the subject to offer a précis of their longer book. We can't do that, obviously, but given the lack of very many even vaguely academically acceptable works on Anderson, closely following Welch's book seems like a solid way to proceed. Beyond that, it seems perfectly appropriate to include within the article a discussion of the claims that supporters made on her behalf, including Rathlef and Botkin, so long as we are clear that it is all totally unverifiable. john k (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how we can do that, since we've already established that there is no source stating directly that the old info is outdated and unverifiable. This is why Finneganw and I just want to leave it out of the articleAggiebean (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It would seem unverifiable information is not appropriate. Wikipedia clearly states 'encyclopedic content must be verifiable '. Finneganw 08:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So is the 'consensus' rule over now?

We have spent days arguing over whether or not to include the details of her story in the article. Finneganw and I have explained why it will not work and still this is being pushed. I know I for one will never consent to that, but it appears the views of the most recent participant is now favored by the mod so I don't see our original plan having a chance now. If this is true, please let me know now. I have a lot of stress in my personal life and cannot deal with the headache of arguing over details in a long article again. If the article is to be extended, I want no part of it.Aggiebean (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see this too has been conveniently ignored, so I'll ask one last time- is the consensus going to be honored as originally planned, or are we going to do whatever John wants anyway, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says? Please just stop avoiding this issue and tell the truth, so I'll know if I'm wasting my time before I waste any more.Aggiebean (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, consensus can changed. You've got new third-party players on this talk page. I say you hear them out before crying blasphemy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

This site offers a good example of just how ridiculous the conspiracy theorists can be, maybe it should be included, but only with the strong disclaimer that it is NOT true:

http://www.snowtao.com/mr/anastasi.htm

Then there's this one, which claims things even I've never seen before:

http://www.geocities.com/grandanor1/anastasia1.html

The Rey Barry article already in the external links is also a good source of conspiracy theories and mentions the alleged intestine switch. Perhaps this should be mentioned in its description.Aggiebean (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If we do include any "No, she was still Anastasia" information then we should use either Schweitzer's letter in Nature Genetics, vol. 9, issue 4, page 345, published in April 1995 after the DNA tests proved she wasn't Anastasia, or Peter Kurth's website. I don't consider the above sources "reliable" per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any such thing as a 'reliable' source of a conspiracy theory. These sites are proof that people believe the intestines were switched. Be it a lawyer or a computer hack, they're all just as wacky. Maybe we shouldn't include them at all. I would like to change the caption for the Rey Barry article to mention it contains the conspiracy theories. As for Kurth's site, it's already in the external links, and while he does still claim she was Anastasia and not FS, he offers no conspiracy theories, so that's not one for that category.Aggiebean (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove the descriptions like so: Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle#External links. DrKay (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Schweitzer is very unreliable. You may or may not be aware that he was banned from the Alexander Palace Forum for his deliberate misinformation. You will find a very good quote on what people have expressed about him in the old article. It goes something along the lines of him being like those who are members of the flat earth society. I'm sure you will find it easily DrKay. Meant to say I thought it was general consensus that Kurth was not acceptable as he is unverifiable, discredited and extremely POV. Finneganw 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what the admin told him:

I'm done. I'm locking the thread. I will no longer tolerate this bull***t. No more game playing. We will no longer provide this forum as a place for Richard Schweitzer to propogandize his theories, much less call them "truth". They aren't.

Take your fairy tales elsewhere Schweitzer, you had a chance to actually answer questions, but you just won't. You are as much a FRAUD sir, as FS was masquerading under the name of Anna Manahan pretending to be the long deceased Anastasia Nicholaievna. The reason you are a fraud is that the tissue sample was NOT "putative" according to you until you did not get the results you wanted. YOU had no doubt as to whom the sample belonged, until, surprise, the answer wasn't the one you liked. Then suddenly, it becomes "putative". Go away you humbug, you hypocritical obfuscator. Come back when you have some genuine facts or evidence, and have the "cojones" to actually take a position and prove it.

I also thought we had agreed not to use dubious sources traced to Botkin or Rathlef, I thought that was no longer even an issue?Aggiebean (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely Mr. Schweitzer is a reliable source for his own beliefs? Including him as the source for supporters still believing she was Anastasia makes sense not because he is somehow more correct than the loons Aggiebean linked to above, but because he is a prominent, well-known supporter whose writings on the subject have been published in real periodicals, not by himself. The point isn't that Schweitzer is a reliable source on DNA testing. It's that he's a reliable source on what Richard Schweitzer believes, and that what Richard Schweitzer believes ought to be seen as representative of the beliefs of Anderson supporters. john k (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Schweitzer is any more of a reliable source on his own beliefs than Rey Barry or Michael Ray Laurence (the ones who wrote the articles I gave as examples) are on theirs. The three all share one belief, that the intestines were switched. Why are they not an authority on their own beliefs as he is? Is it because he's a lawyer, and they're just journalists? Is it because he's the grandson in law of Botkin? Why not include all three, or none, but I can't see excluding the others because Schweitzer is a better source. He's no better than they are, and none of them are any better than AGR Bear!Aggiebean (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Schweitzer is a well known Anderson supporter, whose legal battles over the DNA testing have been written about by Massie, who knew Anderson personally, and who is, yes, Gleb Botkin's son-in-law. He is probably the most famous living supporter of Anderson, besides Kurth. His and Kurth's continued belief in Anderson's claims seems to be notable. Those of some random crackpots on the internet, less so. The point isn't that he's better than them - his views are likely just as ridiculous and crackpottish. It's just that he's more notable than they are - he is a significant crackpot, while they are random crackpots. john k (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought, he was more famous, therefore his opinion matters more? Why not just use them all? Or none?Aggiebean (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about fame, it's about notability. As Gleb Botkin's son-in-law and as a key player in the drawn-out dispute over Mrs. Manahan's DNA, Schweitzer is a notable player in the Anderson story. That he does not accept the results of the DNA test and has written letters, published in actual periodicals, on the subject, is notable. That some crackpots have a website on the subject is not. john k (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rey Barry is a well known and, other than his views on AA, respected journalist in the Charlottesville area. It's also important to show the views of, as you say, 'crackpots who make websites' because you can't have a conspiracy without believers and followers.Aggiebean (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Assessment" section

I've re-written the "Popular culture" section at Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle to try to address some of the concerns. I've renamed it "Assessment", included some assessment of her character, and split off the fictonal portrayals into a new "Fictional portrayals" section. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think what you have put is too bad. I do though think you should remove 'many' and put 'some'. It is not accurate to claim that 'many' believed her fraud. Some certainly chose to do so. A great many did not. That is why she was not able to convince those who really mattered, the Romanovs or relations throughout related families. The other thing that is questionable is your comment about her sanity and doctors. Certainly the doctors who dealt with her after her suicide did not think she was sane or they would have discharged her immediately from their care back into the community. Instead they chose to keep her in a mental hospital for a considerable period of time rather than place her in a general ward in a normal hospital. I think those matters need attending to. The rest is reasonably okay. I tend to think there is no reason to extend the article any further. Finneganw 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why we just can't take those bits out [8]. Removal doesn't seem to effect the flow of the text at all. DrKay (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the stance you want to adopt. I think a great many doubt her sanity. It is fact after all that she was admitted to a mental hospital after her suicide attempt in Berlin and committed by a judge in USA. Finneganw 13:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why it's even an issue to portray her as insane. She was FS and FS was declared insane. AA spent much time in and out of mental hospitals and wards, something that does not happen to your average sane person. She also spent most of her life living a lie pretending to be a dead Grand Duchess. The squalor she chose to live in later in life is also a sign of mental illness. Why is this even in doubt? The woman was crazy.Aggiebean (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, two points:

1. I still have a problem with "a version of Anderson's story." It is a totally unclear statement. It leaves it completely unclear what type of work I, Anastasia was. As I understand it, I, Anastasia, whatever its merits as fact, was published as an autobiography. I understand that Anderson did not actually write it. This is rather irrelevant to the question of whether it is an autobiography - Malcolm X didn't write The Autobiography of Malcolm X. I'd suspect that the vast majority of autobiographies are ghost-written. It is important that it be established that the book purports to be an autobiography - it seems very clearly to be calling itself an "as told to" autobiography, ghost-written by Nidda. This is made clear in the footnotes, but not in the text itself. I don't really care exactly how this information is conveyed, but it ought to be conveyed. "A version of Anderson's story" is just totally unclear - the Bergman Anastasia film is also "a version of Anderson's story" (sort of). I also think that the assessment section should mention Lovell and Kurth's biographies, and then also skeptical works like Massie and Welch. It is always good to give a sense of the playing field in terms of sources.
2. The term "insane" is just totally inappropriate for the article. "Insanity" is no longer a term in medical usage, and it's absurd to try to use it as an acceptable term in that sense. The only proper usage of "insanity" is in a legal context. As far as I know, Anderson was never accused of a crime to which she could plead insanity, so there should be no question of using the word "insane" in the article. I think we ought to use "mentally ill" and "mental illness." john k (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On point 1, I think we need to see whether the compromise "Anderson's ghostwritten story" is acceptable. I see that others prefer "a version" but not that they disagree with "ghostwritten". Perhaps you could draft a sentence for insertion at the end of the paragraph beginning "In 1957, a version..." which covers the four biographies you've mentioned?

On point 2, I think that's best dealt with by leaving out the sentences I've removed [9]. That way, the article does point out a history of mental illness, and stays in mental hospitals, but without saying "insane". DrKay (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "In 1957, a ghost-written autobiography of Anderson, entitled Ich, Anastasia, Erzähle (I, Anastasia, an Autobiography), was published in Germany." ? john k (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't an autobiography. An autobiography describes the author's life. I, Anastasia describes someone else's life at the beginning, then a fictional bridging story, and then the actual author's life. DrKay (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is relevant. An autobiography is a genre, not a promise of truthfulness. Autobiographies can be full of lies, and frequently are. john k (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

DrKay is 100% right here. 'I, Anastasia' was never an autobiography as it would have been written by the real Anastasia before her murder on 17 July 1918. This never happened. Instead there is a rubbish book put out by Anderson's supporter decades after the murder of Anastasia. It fails on all counts as an autobiography. Finneganw 05:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, the problem for me is that it makes it look like the 'autobiography' is the source of her 'story', and that is not true. It was invented and out there many years before that. Rathlef's writings may be the original published source, and that of Gilliard, who was against her. Gilliard and Rathlef were adversaries at the time, one touting her case, the other refuting it. Unfortunately, Rathlef's version survives because it was carried on by Kurth, who has bragged of being the owner of her original notes. Kurth, and others, conveniently avoided the incriminating negative evidence in Gilliard's book, and partly because it was only published in French, partly because more people wanted to take AA's side, it has been left by the wayside over the years while most of the details of the AA story are now traced to Rathlef- and this is why they are so heavily discredited they should not be included in the article.Aggiebean (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there are some rather wild assumptions being tossed around here. It is fact that this was not the autobiography of Anastasia. Anderson after all was not Anastasia. Anastasia was murdered on 17 July 1918 so therefore a book written long after her death cannot have been her autobiography. The title was a complete lie. Anderson also didn't write the work. That is also fact. As for the word sane, the opposite of this word in the english language is insane. It is politically correct now to say mentally ill. It is fact that Anderson was placed in a mental hospital after her attempt at suicide in Berlin. It was hardly a sane act. It is also fact that she was judicially committed as not being sane to another institution in the United States. Malcolm X has nothing to do at all with the discussion. DrKay has done an excellent job in pulling this all together. I congratulate him on his patience. I think he is a good judge at seeing the reality here about what was never an autobiography in the first place. Of course it was a version of the story. Finneganw 17:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no way Nidda's book should be on the same level of consideration with one ghostwritten or written with help, because unlike the others who had this done, she did not tell the story. It was invented, and taken from various other sources. The book openly plaigerizes 'Last Days of the Romanovs' and parts of books written by friends of the family. All the writer did was take parts of available info, change the context to say that AA said it, then pass it off as something she told. It is TOTAL FICTION and PLAGIERISM and should not be given value at all.

For example, AA's 'memory' of life in Tobolsk:

From "I, Anastasia"

In the morning Papa breakfasted with my sister Olga in his study, where afterwards he read or made entries in his diary. Mama was the last to get up, though she woke very early. She stayed a long time in bed, however, and drank her coffee in the bedroom, which she usually did not leave before lunch. Lunch was at noon, and we still had our old chef. There was soup, fish, meat, preserved fruit and afterwards coffee. For supper, too, we sometimes got fruit, whenever it was obtainable in the town. After meals Alexei had to rest while we others went downstairs again.Before tea, which we drank in Papa's study, Alexei got a history lesson from Papa.We also built ourselves a small terrace above the orangery, with steps leading up to it, and there we enjoyed sitting in the sun.

From "Last Days of the Romanovs", examination of Mr. Gibbes:

The empress got up at different times, sometimes much later than others.There were times when the empress came out only for lunch.At lunch we used to have soup, fish, meat and dessert. Coffee was served upstairs. The dinner was similar to the lunch with the difference that some fruits were served. In the morning the emperor had tea with the Grand Duchess Olga in his workroom. Tea in the evening was always served in the emperors workroom and only the family was present. According to the doctor's advice the czarevitch had to rest a little on the sofa after lunch. We went out for a walk till about four or five o'clock. After we returned the emperor gave a lesson in history to the czarevitch. With some assistance the emperor built up a platform on the roof of the orangery. A staircase which was constructed by our combined efforts led to the platform.'

This is no more than a paraphrasing of the paragraph above. This is what that book is made of. Also Finneganw has a point that it can't be an autobiography of Anastasia, because she wasn't Anastasia! Please give this book no consideration!Aggiebean (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was saying that it was an autobiography of Anastasia. It is an autobiography of Anderson. It may be plagiarized; it may be full of lies; it may be completely worthless; it's still an autobiography. Here's the OED definition of autobiography: The writing of one's own history; the story of one's life written by himself. I don't see how there's any implication in that that the autobiography has to be true. The New York Times refers to I, Anastasia as Anderson's autobiography. john k (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you conveniently ignore my lethal evidence that the book wasn't even written, but taken shamelessly from other sources written on the family and passed off as her 'story' and 'memories'. Why?Aggiebean (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "a version of Anderson's own story"? Wouldn't that indicate that it was her own story to start with? DrKay (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I still think that we're unnecessarily avoiding the word "autobiography" for no good reason, and that this version continues to leave unclear the fact that the book was published as a non-fiction autobiography, whatever it may have actually been. We call A Million Little Pieces a memoir, even though most of it was untrue. john k (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think sadly there is doubt that it was even her own story. It is claimed that others handed her the story. Certainly they were never her memories. I guess this all goes to prove how very tangled the web was. I think as I have said previously it is best to keep this whole article very short and simple. It was fraud as it purported to be something it never was. Fancy publishing a book called 'I'Anastasia' long after her death. People actually laughed out loud when reading it as it was so badly written and utterly ridiculous like Anderson and her delusional claim. Finneganw 18:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that claims that others handed her the story? You guys are all about how we can't use any sources written by Anderson supporters, but then you make claims like this without the least sourcing. Beyond that, I found it unaccountable the amount of joy you seem to get out of insulting a mentally disturbed old woman who died twenty five years ago. john k (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

John, this is why we see you as an AA supporter. You sound exactly like them. 'PROVE it didn't happen!' 'Why do you want to hurt this poor old woman who suffered so much?' You KNOW there is no 'reliable source' and that is the catch there, that's how the AA supporters get by with polluting the article with their trash, because though it's obviously BS, they know we don't have a source to say so, that lets them get away with it. I want to know, honestly, if you really, really believe she was a fraud and should be presented that way, why are you trying so hard to make a case for her and her supporters? Why are you, like the AA crowd, grasping at EVERY pathetic little straw to say it 'might' have happened? From all I've read, I give AA herself little to no credit for any of the plot that was her case. It all comes in quotes from supporters and alleged things said written by other people. There is actually no record of AA ever having said or done any of this stuff, and no witnesses other than supporters. In fact, as in the Olga visit case, there are witnesses to the contrary of what the supporters write, though they are written off as 'greedy liars.' You know, having you here is even worse than having a real AA supporter.Aggiebean (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

John is simply trying to make sure this page follows policy. It's his job to ask the right questions to make sure this page isn't overrun with gross anti-FS POV. It appears your judgment is so clouded by your disdain for this woman and her supporters that you're perceiving a legitimate attempt to bring neutrality to this article as an attempt to usher in pro-AA POV. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand why you are defending him. He is exactly the same as all the AA supporters. Just because you like him and admire him doesn't change the fact that he is just like them, he just has a more clever and diplomatic way of stating his point. We had agreed to disregard dubious sources, now he's claiming they're not proven wrong? Well how about this, prove them RIGHT! Can you prove they did say those things? If not, they are not verifiable. I see all have conveniently chosen to ignore my evidence that the 'autobiography' was plagiarized from other sources. As Finneganw and I have stated over and over, there should be no 'neutrality' in this case, because AA WAS NOT ANASTASIA and there is proof. We owe nothing to the AA 'side' because it's bogus information that does not belong in a factual article. That is the correct position. We state and tell the facts and leave out the fantasy and allusion to the myth that must be buried if we are to deliver the truth to our readers.

"Distain" for the woman? What? I don't even hate her personally, she was too demented to be hated, I blame her supporters more than her. What I do hate is that the myth is allowed to perpetuate and that the identity memory of a murdered 17 year old has been stolen and ruined until no one remembers her for herself but for AA, and that is so sad and wrong. What about Anastasia?

There is no way anyone would fight so hard for AA's cause if they didn't want it told pretty badly. The more he writes, the more, not less, I am completely convinced he wants the pro AA side in the story and will do anything to try to justify it. Sorry, actions speak louder than denials. His position is plain as day. This is becoming a circular battle, just like with Chat, and that's what caused the edit wars. Others have been told 'no' when suggesting the same exact things he has, yet if he does it, it's okay? Do you want the article polluted by the AA garbage? The only way to end it is to stick to our original plan, short article, no questionable details, as I thought we had all agreed before he, uh, 'popped in'.Please let me know now if the consensus is to be honored or if you're just going to do whatever he wants regardless of what Finneganw and I think. I would like to know now before I waste any more time on yet another dog chasing his tail AA battle.Aggiebean (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what John and I wanted to see in this article. We don't want to make this article sound like AA was actually Anastasia. Far from that, in fact. The only reason why AA is notable is because her supporters made extravagant claims about her torturous life after the Russian Revolution. What we ask is that we present this vital aspect of AA's notability in the article. It would go along the lines as: "AA's supporters wrote XX book. In this book, they said xx. Scholars later determined that these claims were gross falsification, as demonstrated by XX, XX, and XX." You're making it seem that we want to say: "AA did XX things in her life. These are all legitimate." You're making us out to be the bad guys, when we're simply here to enforce one of Wikipedia's core policies. Furthermore, there still seems to be a misunderstanding of neutrality. We present one side and then the other's side clear refutation and debunking of the tales of AA's life. Your reasoning leads me to believe that you think we want to just state the AA's falsified past in a straightforward, matter-of-fact manner that may be construed as reality. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I had some other things to say, but this is the basic issue. The claims made on behalf of Anderson by her supporters belong in the article. john k (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally posted by Nishkid: "We present one side and then the other's side clear refutation and debunking of the tales of AA's life."

EXACTLY what caused all the edit wars in the first place. Read the history.

I was unaware it was wikipedia's 'policy' to spread and perpetuate false and discredited info in its articles.

I'm still waiting for a response to my proof that the 'autobiography' is nothing but a compilation stolen from other works passed off as 'memories' and not a story told by AA.

Would you please answer my question: does the consensus plan no longer stand? Yes or no.Aggiebean (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes there does seem to be a real misunderstanding here. Spreading discredited unverifiable inaccurate garbage is against wikipedia policy that information must be verifiable. Adminstrator Trusilver clearly confirmed that wikipedia does not push information that is inaccurate or unverifiable. It is fact that Anderson was an imposter. Her claims have been totally discredited as never having occurred. They are grossly inaccurate, Pushing such an agenda is hardly neutral and is extremely POV. It would appear there is a need for another page called Anderson in Wonderland for her supporters. The sandbox is also another place for their inaccurate unverifiable fantasies. It is very clear that another edit war will occur is Anderson supporters are allowed to spread deliberate POV information. Thankfully DrKay is avoiding this. Finneganw 01:28, 18 July 2009

Yes, I remember when trusilver posted the message showing that not all opinions are considered equal by wikipedia, and that those which have become outdated and disproven by more recent information should not be used.Here it is, from archive 3:

I will give one opinion on this and allow it to be interpreted as you will: Every person that achieves any form of celebrity status during their lifetime will eventually (especially after they are dead and can't pursue claims of libel) have something written about them that is patently false and easily provable as such. Fringe authors have repeatedly written books detailing life events of famous historical figures that conflict with the writings of others. In these situations, it has been past Wikipedia practice to not lend weight to that which can be easily disproven. Not every opinion is equal and Wikipedia does not have any obligation to give equal weight to all sides of an obviously lopsided disagreement of fact. That being said, I'm going to to open an RfC today for this article (bear with me, I'm busy today) and perhaps we will get some other opinions. Trusilver 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Aggiebean (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We cannot call I, Anastasia an autobiography. If I suffer a delusion in 5 years' time that I am Michael Jackson, and write an account of my life as Michael Jackson titled I Am Michael Jackson: An Autobiography by DrKay, in which I describe Jackson's life up to 2009 and then claim to have escaped Neverland in an ambulance, is that "DrKay's autobiography"? No. No more than it is Jackson's autobiography. Reviewers would find some other means of referring to the book, such as "a fantasy inspired by the life of Michael Jackson".

Kurth puts the book in quotation marks as an "autobiography" (I stress these are his inverted commas), and explains that it was written by Roland Krug von Nidda with authorization from Anderson's attorneys, and presumably not Anderson herself, which is why she referred to at least one part of it as "lies". Klier and Mingay do not call it an autobiography either, and agree with the assessment that it was not "her story" as such. I have already provided citations for all this above.

If the construction "a version of Anderson's story" is still not acceptable, then we must devise some other way of referring to it, such as "In 1957, I, Anastasia was published as Anderson's autobiography" or "In 1957, a version of Anderson's story interspersed with commentary by Roland Krug von Nidda was published as I, Anastasia, an autobiography." DrKay (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again DrKay. You have explained this very well. IF something has to be placed in the article and I say IF, the latter formula would be the one to go with : "In 1957, a version of Anderson's story interspersed with commentary by Roland Krug von Nidda was published as I, Anastasia, an autobiography." Finneganw 10:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why it has to be used at all, other than maybe just to mention it existed. It is not the original source of the cart story. It contains blatantly reused info from other sources not documented as such but passed off as 'memories'. It also is the source of the bogus "Stanislav Mishkevich" story (alleging this was Alexander Tchiakovsky's real identity) and also the completely fictional accounts of those who were said to have seen and/or helped "Anastasia" and "Tchiakovsky/Mishkevitch" along the way, and crossing the river, on a trip THAT NEVER OCCURED! It's so obviously fictional I certainly hope it isn't being considered a 'reliable source.' On the royalty.nu site, it says the book was written by Nidda with the help of AA's lawyers (remember this was the time when her court case was very active and popular with the media) What if Dr. was to write that book claiming to be Michael Jackson, with detailed info on how he faked his death, snuck out of the house and lived in other places, would this be used as a reliable source in a Michael Jackson article, though it was totally made up? "I, Anastasia" is a mixture of complete fiction and paraphrased writings by those who knew the family, both claimed as fact. That is so horribly wrong on so many levels I can't even believe this is being considered.Aggiebean (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points - first, either of the versions DrKay proposes seem fine to me. Second, I think Aggie is perhaps right about not calling it the original source of the cart story, which Anderson had been telling since the 20s, as I understand it. Secondly, Aggie, this is not the Michael Jackson article in the analogy DrKay made. The Jackson article is analogous to the article on Anastasia. This article is analogous to a hypothetical article on DrKay. If DrKay were to become famous as someone claiming to be Michael Jackson, and if various people who knew Jackson purported to recognize him as Jackson, the question would be "what to include in an article about him?" In this case, DrKay is presumably notable largely for his impersonation of Michael Jackson. The details of the story he told to explain how he was Michael Jackson would be important, although we could of course note that they were fraudulent. As such, I'll repeat myself - nobody is suggesting that I, Anastasia be treated as a reliable source on Anderson's life (much less on Anastasia's). It might, however, be a reliable source on Anderson's false story of how she supposedly escaped from the murder of "her" family at Ekaterinburg. That story is itself notable, and ought to be treated in the article. We should of course add that there is not a lick of evidence for any of it, and that it is, at any rate, demonstrably untrue because Anderson was not Anastasia. But there's no reason not to describe the story. Whether it should be described in this part of the article is a different question. john k (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to add, in terms of fringe POVs, and aggiebean's contention that we don't need to include them. This is obviously true to a certain extent, and the article needs to be particularly clear on the basic issue that Anderson was not Anastasia. Those who deny this are truly on the fringe. On the other hand, Kurth and Schweitzer, in particular were close to Anderson/Manahan personally, and as such their continued doubts might be notable, not to cast doubt on who Anderson was, but as a demonstration of the loyalty and fervor she created among those who knew and believed her - i.e., they are interesting not as disinterested scholars of the subject, but as being part of the story. Beyond that, we also should not conflate the question of "Was Anderson Anastasia," on which there is a definitive consensus (No, she was not) with the question "Was Anderson's claim credible during her lifetime?" On this latter question there does not seem to be a consensus, and we ought to reflect both views on this. It is perfectly possible that Anderson was not Anastasia, but also was actually convincing to many people at the time. Simply because she was not Anastasia, that does not mean we must treat everybody who believed her as either knaves or fools. john k (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I put Anderson supporters of her lifetime in 3 categories, not 'knaves and fools.' 1. Those who believed due to wishful thinking, and because it was much more interesting and fun than acceping the truth. The vast majority of these people never met the real Anastasia, or had such limited contact years before they could not be an accurate judge of a false or real one. 2. Con artists/opportunists- these people knew she wasn't Anastasia, but continued to push her cause due to the alleged large sums of money involved. I personally believe the ones who knew her better and should have known better were in this category. 3. Those who were bit players in the saga but blatantly lied or took up her cause in hopes of a big payoff. Much of the now discredited 'testimony' belongs to this group. No, I do not believe anyone who knew Anastasia well would believe a claimant and this is why Olga and Gilliard fought her so hard, and had their reps trashed for it. One thing I'd like to see the article to is clear these two of the villanizing put on them by AA supporters over the years, much of which has sadly become accepted as fact when it never was. Kurth's and Lovell's books did much to promote those theories. Oh, and there's yet another category for those who still believe in her after the DNA tests, it's those who will never admit to being wrong, and those who knew or met her who feel their own lives are a little less special if she was only FS. There are also some who just plain don't know any better, and this is why we need to be strong in our stating that her claim is and always was totally false. Only 2 days ago on a message board, a girl arrived telling the story of Anastasia being pregnant after her escape, and it took four of us to tell her it was wrong. She said she never knew that, and never heard of the DNA tests. She had read a website backing AA's claims and had no reason do disbelieve it. I think some of you take for granted that most of the public already knows AA was a fake, but I don't think this is true. Most people have had little to no exposure to the details as we have, and the DNA stories were only in the news for a few days. They will come to wiki looking for answers and we have to tell the truth with no more fantasy. The myth has lasted long enough. Bury it.Aggiebean (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Olga and Gilliard get attacked by Anderson supporters because both of them seemed initially uncertain about whether she was Anastasia, and only later came out strongly against her. This allows them to spin elaborate and ridiculous conspiracy theories, but there had to be a kernel of truth to spin those conspiracy theories around. At any rate, your belief that nobody who knew Anastasia well could believe Anderson was Anastasia is completely irrelevant. The fact is that a number of people who knew Anastasia were either uncertain or did believe she was Anastasia. You may think Gleb and Tatiana Botkin were lying scoundrels, but as far as I am aware there are not any reliable sources which accuse them of acting in bad faith. You may, without much evidence except one sentence in a letter, think Grand Duke Andrew was lying for some nefarious purpose, but there aren't any reliable sources which say such a thing. You may believe Olga's later protestations that she never for a moment believed that Anderson was her niece, but the written evidence of what she actually said at the time suggests, at the very least, that she was initially uncertain - and Massie, at least, who obviously did not believe that Anderson was Anastasia, certainly seems to think that Olga was initially inclined to believe Anderson was Anastasia, but later changed her mind. You may think that Andrew, or Princess Xenia, or whoever, did not know Anastasia well enough to really be able to recognize her - but again, it's OR to state this straight out. The basic issue is that there were people who knew Anastasia who said they believed that Anderson was the grand duchess, and that you have not yet presented any reliable sources that accuse them of knowingly perpetrating a fraud. There was also, indisputably, various physical evidence presented to support the idea that she was Anastasia - the facial similarities expert, the handwriting experts, the ear guy. Obviously, they were all wrong, and those kind of tests are, as I understand it, no longer seen as scientifically valid and not really used to establish identity anymore. But they were seen as real forms of evidence at the time, and helped to convince some people. Anderson lost her court case, but that was a matter of the burden of proof. Until the DNA test results came out, it seems that the accurate characterization would be that there was a lively dispute about whether she was Anastasia. The view that she was not was always the predominant view, but there was enough stuff pointing the other way to keep the conversation going. And certainly her case was convincing enough that the grand duke of Hesse, the tsar's sisters, Lord Mountbatten, and the rest were willing to go to a considerable degree of effort to fight her, whereas they never took any notice of any of the numerous other claimants. As such, it is misleading to present the story as though it was always as clear as it is now that she was not Anastasia. No matter what this article says, there are going to be people who read Kurth's book, or read websites based on Kurth's book, or whatever, and believe that Anderson was Anastasia. The article obviously needs to say that she was not Anastasia, but it absolutely is not the article's job to avoid any discussion of the various arguments put forth in favor of Anderson's genuineness simply because it might lead people to think she was Anastasia. If people come out of an article which presents the utter ridiculousness of Anderson's supposed explanation of how she escaped from Ekaterinburg and the utter lack of evidence for any of it; which notes Anderson's rejection by all of Anastasia's close relatives, and the lack of any evidence for the "tsarist gold in the Bank of England" and "Uncle Ernie's trip to Russia" stories which Anderson supporters have pointed to to supposedly explain this; which describes the failure of Anderson's legal case, and the various evidences which people brought against her claim to be Anastasia; which describes her increasing eccentricity and the bizarre story of her later years; and which, above all, clearly explains the DNA test results and how they prove that she cannot have been Anastasia; and, after all that, still come out believing she was Anastasia, well, there's nothing we can do about that, and there's really nothing we should do about that. john k (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The truth is, the spin on Olga and Gilliard's alleged acceptance can all be traced to the writings of Rathlef, which, considering how everything she ever said of anyone against AA was the exact opposite of what they told themselves, are most likely not even true, and are certainly highly embellished. She was the lone witness who recorded and spread AA's version of the story, so we can't rule out that it wasn't even ever correct! It's wrong to say they accepted her then turned their backs, that's Kurth's spin. In reality, (and there is a paragraph in the Klier book to use as a source for this) they weren't sure, because AA was so emaciated and scarred, they had to take more time to consider whether or not it was Anastasia with amnesia who looked different due to her illness and injuries. They gave her a chance, but then realized, sadly ,it wasn't her. This is not the same thing as acceptance and back turning as AA supporters claim. Also, when they first visited, they had such high hopes, it may have tainted their immediate judgement but after they reconsidered and thought about it, they knew it wasn't her. Shura is listed as a supporter of AA, because Rathlef claimed she was, but in reality, as early as a couple months after the visit, she said "Though I have not found anything in her features or her ways that remind me of AN (Anastasia Nikolaevna), I am ready to help you in your researches" .."the letter of the invalid has touched me deeply, but I have not found in it AN." Kurth and other supporters avoid this. I found it in Welch's book. Kurth also avoids all the Vorres quotes by Olga. They wanted to paint them as accepting her until someone told them not to for money. That is wrong. I don't even need to tell the story of the woman I knew who was looking for her dog and took the wrong one home before realizing it wasn't him, we need look no further than the tragic story of Laura Van Ryn and Whitney Cerak to see that even in 2006, a person can be fooled by the condition of an injured loved one and sad cases of mistaken identity can happen.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-31-indiana-mistaken-identity_x.htm Why did the relatives fight AA so hard and not other claimants? Easy! It didn't mean AA was a better or more convincing claimant as supporters would like for you to believe, the reality is, AA was the one with the court case, the one trying to get money. If there hadn't been a legal case, she'd have been ignored like the rest of them. If the others had lawsuits, they'd have gotten attention too. Also don't forget AA's lawyers sued some of the relatives by name, forcing them to respond in court to defend themselves. Another example of how the fallacies invented and perpetuated by AA supporters are not what they seem once you know the whole story. Additionally, AA, unlike other claimants, had the backing of people like Botkin and Rathlef who knew how to spin a tale.Aggiebean (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you say here about Olga and Gilliard's reaction. But it's certainly true that neither Olga nor Gilliard immediately rejected her, and that this is why wild conspiracy theories have been created around them. As far as the rest, as far as I'm aware nobody who knew anyone in the imperial family took any notice of any of the other claimants. With Anderson, you have the Botkins championing her cause, a visit from Olga, support from Grand Duke Andrew and Princess Xenia, long term financial support from the Duke of Leuchtenberg. Anderson was much more famous long before there was any court case. The fact that she had supporters willing to create a court case was itself a function of the fact that she was already the most famous claimant, not the other way around. john k (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to know what the surviving members of the imperial family thought of all the claimants. Basically they never accepted any of them, including the outrageous Anderson/Schankowska who tried to steal monies from them. Anderson was known to be an patient of mental hospitals for extended periods suffering from delusions. An early private investigation noted she was Schankowska. That hardly though equates with fame. Felix Yussopov recorded what he thought of the claimants as did a son of Grand Duchess Xenia. Yussopov wouldn't have spoken publicly unless the nod had been give. All the claimants were utterly preposterous. It's hard to imagine any person taking any of them seriously without an agenda. Finneganw 12:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anderson pretty clearly got more recognition from surviving members, relations, and retainers of the imperial family than anybody else. Did Princess Xenia invite any of the other claimants to live with her? Did Olga visit any of the others and write letters to them? Did anyone who knew the grand duchesses as well as the Botkins did champion any of the alternative claimants? Did any of the others receive any kind of recognition at all from those groups? As far as I am aware, none did. It's simply an acknowledgement of fact to say that she won far more recognition than any of the other claimants. Whether those who accepted her had an agenda is something which our sources do not treat, and as such, is just original speculation on your part. john k (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

John, you need to review the story. The claims of large sums of money in the Bank of England date all the way back to 1925. She told people her 'father' had told her in Tobolsk there were large sums of money deposited in the names of all the daughters. Clearly, since she wasn't Anastasia, she'd have known nothing of what the Tsar secretly told her, and of course there turned out not to be such bank accounts, but this leaves us wondering who originated the story, probably one of the supporters. The wheels of legal action were in motion as early as 1928 when Gleb attacked the Tsar's sisters soon after the death of the dowager empress. It was then that Xenia Leeds and Andrew withdrew all support. The reason she got attention from relatives is because she and her supporters were threatening them, having money held up pending the outcome of her claims, and some even sued by name, forcing them to get involved to defend themselves. Mountbatten got into it by coming to the financial aid of his cousin, Barbara Mecklenberg, who was sued personally by AA's lawyers. you need to read the book "Lost Fortune of the Tsars" by William Clarke.

Yes AA was fortunate enough to have savvy backers who could spin her yarn for her, and also people like the Botkins who had known the family and whose relative was head of the Berlin Emigre community. She was fortunate to have Rathelf and Botkin come write stories about her to gain her more fame. Back to the beginning, Clara P. began it all by writing letters to relatives and emigres.Through Botkin, who sought the help of NY lawyer Falows, "Grandanor Corporation" was established, selling shares to supporters to gain money for the lawsuit, promising a cut of the fortune if she won. These were the reasons she got more notoriety, not because she herself was a better claimant. She herself rarely even spoke or made any claims. It was the supporters and later lawyers. All these people stood to gain in fame and fortune if the story turned out to be true, or if they could convince enough fools it was. By the late 50s, the worldwide media had cemented this story into popular culture far beyond just the circles she had run in, and from that point on it became a legend. But, it's time to make a clear separation of fact and fiction. Your version of things seems much too close to Kurth's spin. We must get beyond that now.Aggiebean (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly speculation on my behalf at all. It is simply fact that Botkin and others made money out of writing about Anderson. That is not speculation it is simply hard fact. Money was always the agenda. Anderson managed to live off others using their money rather than getting a job like anybody else would have had to. I guess she must have been the ultimate sponger. She allowed herself to be used by others. That's not fame. That is notorious appalling behaviour of the very worst kind. Small wonder those who knew the real Anastasia felt nothing but repugnance at the behaviour of Anderson/Schankowska and her 'court'. It is only now that the game is up that people can refocus on the real Anastasia and her tragedy rather than on a mentally ill old woman who had nothing at all to do with Anastasia, Russia or any of the Romanovs. Finneganw 16:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how any of what you say has anything to do with what I said. I'm not even sure what we're substantively arguing about. Perhaps it's time to archive the talk page to facilitate getting back on track? john k (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just dealing with matters you chose to raise JohnK. I think we are very much 'on track' and very much to the point about Anderson and her supporters and their motives. The fraud was always about claiming money that was not theirs to claim. Finneganw 01:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the money issue is important and ought to be dealt with, although we shouldn't simply accuse people of having dishonest motives without a reliable source which contends as much. Beyond that, I said we're "off track" because this discussion has only the most tenuous connection to the direct issues of improving the article. john k (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is there in the inaccurate and disproven works written that earned monies for her supporters beyond death. We're totally on track. Only fanatical AA supporters have tried to spread inaccurate nonsense. It has all been totally misproven. Anderson was never Anastasia. She never had any memories. Botkin and Rathlef were obviously mistaken and masters of invention as were all the rest although they made nice monies out of it all as did others. I suggest further attention is paid to what Administrator said about pushing discredited sources. Finneganw 07:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence now reads "In 1957, a version of Anderson's story, pieced together by her supporters and interspersed with commentary by Roland Krug von Nidda, was published in Germany under the title Ich, Anastasia, Erzähle (I, Anastasia, an autobiography)." I have changed "other animated versions utilize parts of I, Anastasia for inspiration," to "other animated versions utilize parts of Anderson's discredited escape story for inspiration". DrKay (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That works very well. Finneganw 09:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not fame, notoriety

Anderson was never famous. She was notorious in her pretension to be one she never was. The Botkins made money out of her through pushing a false agenda. As for Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna there is ample evidence from her that she never recognised Anderson as anything but a fraud. She pitied the one she met, but she never recognised her as her niece. I suggest those who claim otherwise read her fully authorised biography containing in depth interviews recorded by Vorres. Grand Duke Andrew backed away from Anderson after the slanderous letter to the murdered Tsar's sisters from Gleb Botkin. He recorded his thoughts about what he found extremely distasteful to the Botkins. It is so obvious it was all about money from the Botkin side. As for Leuchtenberg his son recorded thoughts there in detail. Anderson was well know for being notorious, but she was never at all famous except in the minds of her supporters. Those who knew the real Anastasia knew how very notorious Anderson/Schankowska was and they have been proven totally correct. Those who claim otherwise need to do a great deal of further research. It's all there if they bother to look beyond Kurth's unobjective, poorly researched discredited tome. Finneganw 11:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to look at the damage caused by Anderson

Having read the exchange between JohnK and Aggiebean I believe it is probably time to consider putting something into the article about the damage Anderson inflicted on the reputations of real people closely related to the late Tsar and his family either by blood or by service due to her gross fraud. She and her supporters maligned the repuations of a range of people in their bid to have Anderson accepted. It is high time such deplorable tactics were mentioned as she and her supporters did not care what mistruths and slander they spread. I refer to the outrageous slanders to the reputations of Baroness Buxhoeveden, Grand Duchesses Olga and Xenia Alexandrovna (the last Tsar's sisters), Pierre Gilliard and his wife and so on. Anderson and her supporters were extremely unpleasant people to say the least. I believe that their outrageous behaviour should be mentioned as it has been proven that her claims were totally incorrect. Finneganw 00:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there should be mention of the character assassination of those who denied her, by both her and her supporters. This was their way of trying to discredit those who would not accept her by attempting to convince the public that they had ulterior motives to denounce her, such as greed (Olga A, Gilliard) or that she allegedly knew some rotten secret on them and they had to deny her to keep it from getting out(Buxhoeven, Ernie, Gibbes) or even that one tried to kill her (Yussoupov) or had killed one of her supporters (Mountbatten). It is most unfortunate that all this has been spread and that people to this day believe it. The real reason these people denied her was simply because she wasn't Anastasia.Aggiebean (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is all so very obvious. It's the typical tactics of those who realise they have been found out. They then turn to personal attack as they can't convince through logical argument. It's a case of you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Anderson/Schankowska only fooled some of the people, some of the time. She never succeeded in fooling all of the people all of the time as so many knew the reality and that was that she was not the real Anastasia. As a result she and her supporters went out of their way to attack those who knew the real Anastasia the best: her surviving blood relatives, friends and faithful servants. To think that Anderson and her supporters thought and rather bizarrely a very small minority still think that they can con others is beyond belief. The game is up and their cash cow is long dead and has been totally exposed for the fraud she always was. Finneganw 16:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, she said the thing about the Grand Duke supposedly visiting Russia during the war before Ernst Ludwig had made any public statement about her at all. If so, it would seem inaccurate to say that this accusation was some kind of character assassination of an enemy, since the grand duke had not yet become her enemy at that point. john k (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that Massie, in his rather brief discussion of the issue, basically seems to give credence to the idea that Ernst Ludwig's investigation of Anderson was partly motivated by a desire to debunk the "secret wartime visit to Russia" story. Perhaps more recent and more detailed sources don't think this is credible, but your version seems to get the order of events wrong. john k (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these points would be better presented in a biography section, however, we should get agreement on the "Assessment" section before moving on. Otherwise, the discussion just gets lost, like it did over the weekend. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More AA supporter inaccurate misinformation that has been disproven. Once again attacking Anderson's betters to try to make her fraud look credible. She has been completely disproven. Nothing she claimed about her pretension to be Anastasia is at all accurate as she never had any memories. It's rather sad to see such drivel being spread yet again. It would appear far wider reading is required. Read up on Christian X of Denmark and Alexandra's brother the Grand Duke of Hesse and the truth shall be revealed. Finneganw 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, this was more reading than I can get through in one sitting. Sorry for being absent in this discussion, but I just came home from 10 days on a yacht off the coast of Italy. As for Roland von Krug Nidda's book, it is almost a verbatum copy of Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann's book, but told in first person. It also has several quotations from Gleb Botkin's book. Of course, it is in no way as detailed as Frau Rathlef's book. Somehow I wish that both Aggiebean and Finneganw would actually READ these two books before they even try to review them. Othewise, I realize that the discussion has not gone very much forward since my leaving for Europe. The hatred of Anna Anderson and the vilifiying of Kurth etc. is still the agenda of the day. Now, my repeated question is: What part of Peter Kurth's book is discredited? So far, I have had no answer. ChatNoir24 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The answers have long been provided for the whole world to see ChatNoir24. Unfortunately you have chosen not to read them remaining in a fantasy world. You have been repeatedly answered and yet just continue your rant throwing up the same inaccurate, unverifiable discredited misinformation. You have also been informed that promoting misinformation is not acceptable at wikipedia by an administrator. Don't presume to utter nonsense about what I have read. It would seem you have nothing to contribute to the article. Those you mention have vilified themselves. Nobody needs to do it for them. Finneganw 09:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And as usual, you are unable to answer my question. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly answered. How very tiresome. Finneganw 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it gets rather tiresome to continuously ask the same question without getting an answer. Aggiebean has several times tried with her old argument: It could not have happened just because I say so, but that is not an answer. Again: What part of Kurth's book has been discredited? ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All of it and that is quite obvious. Looks like there's a need to find from a museum an authentic grammaphone record that is playable. The old poor quality one is broken beyond repair. I guess some haven't worked out MP3 players exist and still try to piece together broken old badly formed grammaphone records. Time for a reality check to realise no glues can hold together the faulty smashed old Anderson grammaphone that never really functioned. Of course it was never the real thing so it is not surprising it never functioned properly.Finneganw 02:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment section

I think the objections on the current content are addressed but some concerns over missing information have been raised. Could those people who wish to see material inserted to the "Assessment" section please draft a sourced, neutral sentence for consideration for inclusion? If there are no such drafts presented, then we'll move on to the biography. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that strikes me is that we have no assessment of Anderson from the Romanov family point of view. After all they knew the real Anastasia extremely well from birth and issued statements refuting the pretensions of Anderson during her lifetime and afterwards. There is a particularly good quote in the old article from Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna about the truth of Anderson only being that of her suicide attempt. It comes from her authorised biography recorded by Vorres. They after all were the ones most grievously insulted and effected by Anderson's fraud. It might be a touch difficult to reduce their viewpoints down to one sentence. Prince Philip's Private Secretary also issued a statement about Anderson when the DNA results were released. There is quite a long list of information in the old article. Finneganw 09:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a quote from Lord Mountbatten. Can't that be taken to represent a "family view"? I would try to avoid a "long list". There's a danger of lists expanding, as more examples from either side are added. I think it's better to have an encapsulating sentence with one example, and even to enforce that by removing any examples added at a later date that cover the same ground as other material already in the article. DrKay (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from. I think the quote from Prince Philip's Private Secretary after the release of the DNA results is something like 'Game, Set and Match' .. meaning Anderson is out of the game. Yussopov also had a very interesting quote. I think the Mountbatten quote is a good one. He was murdered in 1979 before matters were truly solved. I think we need a quote that conveys how things were seen after the DNA tests proved she was not Anastasia. I'll try and have a look in the archive or at the old article to pull a quote. Finneganw 13:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Some quotes to choose from:

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (Aunt of Anastasia)

But the whole story is palpably false. I was convinced then, as I am now, that it is so from beginning to end. Just think of the supposed rescuers - vanishing into thin air, as it were! Had Nicky's daughter been really saved, her rescuers would have known just what it meant to them. Every royal house in Europe would have rewarded them. Why, I am sure that my mother would not have hesitated to empty her jewel-box in gratitude. There is not one tittle of genuine evidence in the story. p.177, Vorres, The Last Grand Duchess.

Sir Brian McGrath, spokesman for Prince Philip stated on the release of the DNA results, said Game, set, match! Anna Anderson is out. p.242, Massie, The Romanovs: The Final Chapter

Prince Felix Yussopov - (husband of Princess Irina of Russia, daughter of Grand Duchess Xenia) wrote to Grand Duke Andrei about Anderson: I claim categorically that she is not Anastasia Nicolaievna, but just an adventuress, a sick hysteric and a frightful playactress. I simply cannot understand how anyone can be in doubt of this. If you had seen her, I am convinced that you would recoil in horror at the thought that this frightful creature could be a daughter of our Tsar ... These false pretenders ought to be gathered up and sent to live in a house somewhere.

After the DNA tests proved her an imposter, a member of the Romanov family explained their position over the years, and why they usually kept silent on the subject. Prince Michael Romanov, (Grandson of Xenia and Sandro by their son Andrew), born in 1920 in exile in France, stated that while growing up he heard quite a bit of discussion on the topic of Anderson, and that it was obvious that she was false and 'dubious' people were aiding her:

"From the very beginning of the affair it was obvious to my family Anna Anderson was an impostor," recalls Prince Michael, "that there were dubious people and motives behind her claims, but few would listen to our protestations at the time."

"We were a very close-knit family in exile and I remember as a youth listening to several conversations between my grandmother (Grand Duchess Xenia), relatives and friends. All were appalled by the claims being made by the hordes of impostors, there were just so many people claiming to be Ekaterinburg survivors. Several members of my family or representatives went to see Anna Anderson during the early days and dismissed her claims, and were amazed anyone could seriously believe a woman unable to speak Russian or answer specific questions about the lives of the Imperial Family could be the daughter of Nicholas II.

Over the years friends and acquaintances who had seen the movies or read the books on Anderson would lecture me on why she was genuine," Prince Michael recalls, "few would listen to or accept the other side of the argument. It was infuriating but after a while I just stopped arguing, what point was it?, how could I compete with the glamorous tales being created by the entertainment industry?

I remember the day I heard DNA tests had proven beyond conjecture Anna Anderson wasn't the Grand Duchess Anastasia, just another in a long and undistinguished like of fakes. Of course it came as no surprise!, it only validated what my family had been saying for 60 years and now people were finally paying attention.

My family looked upon Anderson and the three ringed circus which danced around her, creating books and movies, as a vulgar insult to the memory of the Imperial Family.

Prince Rostislav Romanov, another grandson of Sandro and Xenia was quoted by the Associated Press saying upon learning of the 1994 DNA results, "I never had a shadow of a doubt. My father was raised with Anastasia, and this woman would never see him."[110]

Finneganw 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, three points:

1. I have an issue with is the clause 'Anderson's supporters said the claims "might seem bold inventions even for a dramatist."' I don't know what the full context is, but both the "supporters'" and "detractors'" claims are sourced to I, Anastasia itself, which is puzzling. The implication seems to be that "even supporters didn't believe Anderson's claims," which doesn't seem right to me. If that is right, the sentence should be written differently, with contrast words like "even Anderson's supporters," or the like. At any rate, I find the quotation weirdly out of context.
2. Second, I think the assessment section should mention other works about her - After the discussion of I, Anastasia, I think we should mention Lovell and Kurth's books. Something along the lines of, "more recent works based on the premise that Anderson was Anastasia include biographies by Peter Kurth and James Blair Lovell." We might note after this that Kurth has been prominent in refusing to accept that Anderson was Schankowska even after the DNA tests. This could be followed by a mention of skeptical recent works, although I'm not sure how to phrase it.
3. Third, I think it starts to get problematic to include lots of quotes from relatives of Anastasia who didn't believe Anderson. If we include Olga's later, highly skeptical comments, shouldn't we also include her earlier, more credulous ones ("My reason cannot grasp it...")? If we include comments from the duke of Edinburgh's spokesman and Yussupov, why not from Gleb Botkin or Grand Duke Andrew on the other side? If we only include comments from one side, this seems like a serious POV issue. I particularly don't think that comments from Xenia's grandsons after 1994 are particularly appropriate for the article. I do like Prince Yussupov's idea of a house for false pretenders - sounds like an awesome reality show. john k (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly more complete nonsense. Some simply don't get the message that discredited information is not able to be used as it is inaccurate and unverifiable. Kurth and Lovell are totally discredited. That has already been dealt with. It would seem some need to read what has already been dealt with. Kurth is one of the major spreaders of disinformation and is completely unobjective and biased. His distortions have no place here at all. As for the fake Olga quotes they have already been exposed by Olga herself. One wonders how such garbage can continue to be pushed when it has been completely repudiated. Grand Duke Andrew of course repudiated the Botkins and distanced himself from the whole business. Of course the Romanov family position is greatly important as they were 100% right about her ALL along. Interesting statistics to come shortly about the number of pretenders! Yussopov was spot on. Finneganw 14:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That Olga much later said different things from what she was reported as saying in the 1920s is not evidence that the quotes are fake. The fact that Anderson was not Anastasia simply does not mean that we can view anything written by anybody who supported Anderson as "discredited" without other evidence. (I'd add that the fact that Kurth presents misleading arguments on messageboards now is not actually evidence that his book is discredited) And all I want to do at the moment is mention Lovell's and Kurth's books as existing and presenting a pro-Anderson perspective. john k (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Finneganw, you still seem to incorrectly think that just because AA isn't Anastasia, we shouldn't mention any pro-AA material. This article wouldn't even exist on Wikipedia if pro-AA material had not been written. As I said before, it goes to her notability. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's rather a red herring. There are plenty of articles on imposters at wikipedia. See below and you will notice how many claimants there were to those children of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna who were murdered in the cellar of the Ipatiev House. By the way fake quotes attributed to Olga are just that - fake. Do some research and you will find that out. Of course AA suporters never bother to do that. That is one particular pathetic thing they all share in common. Playing the same scratched records on out of date equipment. Finneganw 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On point 1, the format of I, Anastasia is a few paragraphs of Anderson's story, followed by a few paragraphs of commentary or assessment by von Nidda, followed by more of Anderson's story, and so on. The distinction between Anderson's first-person narrative and von Nidda's notes on her story is clear. Different typefaces are used for example, and there are breaks in the text between each section, as well as the differences in voice, tone, style and whether the first- or third-person is used. Speaking from memory as I do not have the book in front of me right now, in the part of the book about her escape, first the story is laid out in a first-person narrative, and then von Nidda comments upon it, pointing out discrepancies and problems, such as the lack of documentary evidence, as well as discussing or providing supposed corroborating testimonies. As a supporter of Anderson, von Nidda notes that the story sounds unlikely and "might seem bold inventions even for a dramatist" but essentially says he believes it anyway, because how else could she have escaped, and why else would she admit to marrying and having a child by a peasant? However, he then admits that it's too much for many people who simply don't believe the story and consider it "a piece of far-fetched romance".

On point 2, I prefer the phrasing "Other works based on the premise that Anderson was Anastasia, written before the DNA tests, include biographies by Peter Kurth and James Blair Lovell. More recent biographies by John Klier, Robert Massie and Frances Welch that describe her as an imposter were written after the DNA tests proved she was not Anastasia." This is presuming that Lovell and Welch do write this, since I've only read the other three. DrKay (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your wording on point 2 sounds good to me. On the I, Anastasia front, thanks for the clear explanation. I think the sentence ought to be as follows: Even Anderson's supporters admitted that the details of the supposed escape "might seem bold inventions even for a dramatist",[25] while her detractors considered "this barely credible story as a piece of far-fetched romance". What do you think? john k (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes the premise needs to be clearly stated about when Kurth and Lovell put out their tomes so it is quite obvious they are extremely dated and grossly unobjective and inaccurate. By the way I do have a copy of 'I, Anastasia'. That is why I know what rubbish it is. I picked it up years ago in a throw out section for around 40 cents. It is utterly ridiculous and openly laughable. Finneganw 16:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Mountbatten quote:

I can assure you that there is not the remotest doubt that this woman is not my cousin. She was seen by all our closest mutual relations, all of whom declared there was no resemblance." He once told the BBC, strongly advising them against interviewing her and helping her supporters, who, he claimed, "simply wanted to get rich on the royalties of further books, magazine articles, plays, etc. From "Mountbatten" by Phillip Zeigler, p. 679

She was seen by all our closest mutual relations???? All of whom declared there was no resemblance???? No wonder he squelched the BBC program, he seem to be as afraid of AA as Ernst von Hesse was. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the one Finneganw posted by Michael R. That sums it up. I certainly hope the tit for tat quote matching is not going to return, that is what caused the edit wars and length of the article, and its messy composition as too many cooks spoiled the stew.Aggiebean (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this summary of Prince Michael's statements, and then we can use the enitre writeup on the Godl site as the source material?

Prince Michael Romanov, a grandson of Grand Duchess Xenia and Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich ("Sandro") explained the family's position on Anderson and her case based on his lifelong memories. He stated the entire 'close knit' family was appalled by the shameless claims of the imposters. Since some family members had met AA in person and reported that she couldn't speak Russian or answer any simple questions, they were all surprised anyone could take her seriously and accept her as the daughter of the Tsar. The family was frustrated at their inability to discourage belief in her because they couldn't compete with the more glamorous side portrayed by the media and entertainment industry. They looked upon her and the 'three ringed circus that danced around her' as a 'vulgar insult' to the memory of the late Imperial family. Prince Michael said it was good to see the family finally vindicated by the DNA results.Aggiebean (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before: You love to include hearsay in the article, and Prince Michael's comments are just that!ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As promised as an eye-opener -Survivor statistics from the massacre at the Ipatiev House, Ekaterinburg

This is according to the Russian language documentary "Poslye Rasstrela" ("After the Execution").

Total number of "Russian imperial children" claimants since 1918:

Olga: 28 claimants

Tatiana: 33 claimants

Maria: 53 claimants

Anastasia: 33 claimants

Alexei: 81 claimants

Total: 228 "imperial children" who survived the Ekaterinburg massacre...

- Just goes to show how large fraud was as an industry. Anderson was not alone and Yussopov's thoughts on imposters were rather apt. Finneganw 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is your point? john k (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess some simply don't understand. Reading helps. Finneganw 16:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are saying that there have been numerous Romanov claimants, other than Anderson. What does this have to do with anything? john k (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there is a lack of understanding if such a questiion needs to be asked. Finneganw 17:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Romanovs and Anderson -fact and fiction

Has anybody ever thought of the fact that only a VERY FEW of the Romanov family saw Anna Anderson and therefore were able to have an opinion on the subject? The first one to see her, was not a family member, but a lady in waiting, Isa Buxhöveden. She declared that AA had nothing in common with AN, in spite of the color of the hair, the height, the eyes, the bodily scars and the Hallux Valgus. The second one was aunt Irene, who begged AA to come to Hemmelmark with her in order to clear up the matter. Later, she testified that "I saw at once that she could not be one of my nieces." Then Gilliard met AA, and he was sure enough that she was AN to call her by the title Grand Duchess and advise Olga to come to Berlin to meet her. Olga herself stated after the meeting that "My heart tells me it is Anastasia." Later she would write to AA, telling her that "My thoughts are always with you - I remember the times we were together." Some years after, Grand Duke Andrew met AA in Paris, and he wrote Olga that "For me there is no doubt, she is Grand Duchess Anastasia.". Grand Duke Alexander's grandson met AA many years later, and his opinion is only that since he never knew the real Anastasia. But he thought she reminded him of Xenia. The rest of the Romanovs did not meet Anna Anderson, and whatever they have to say, is nothing but hearsay. As for Olga talking about her mother opening her jewel case, that is a bit of an overstatement. We all know that Empress Marie wanted nothing at all to do with the woman in Berlin and was angry with Olga for going to see her.

As for Nidda's writings, he mentions several people who testified about the flight to Bucharest. There was Count von Hardenberg's story of the German prisoner of war who contacted him, telling that he had for some days travelled in the company of two soldiers driving a cart with two wounded grand duchesses in it on his flight from Russia. There is the signed document from Sarsha Gregorian, stating that he helped Grand Duchess Anastasia cross the Dniestr into Moldova on 12-5-1918. There is the signed statement from Mr. Anastasiou about his meeting with Stanislav (Mishkevich?) in Bucharest early December 1918 when Stanislav apparently was looking for a hospital for the Grand Duchess Anastasia. And there is, of course, the pearl letter, which is rather circumstancial evidence at its best. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More inaccurate and totally discredited nonsense. Once again a favourite habit of the fanatical AA supporter maligning with false information the reputations of those who knew the real Anastasia. It doesn't wash anymore ChatNoir24. How deluded somebody must have been looking for a hospital for a dead woman in December 1918. The corpse must have been really stinking by then. But of course none of it ever happened as Anastasia was brutally murdered with her siblings, parents and their retainers on 17 July 1918 and all the remains have been found and accounted for. How you were so very missed in your absence. Finneganw 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate and discredited? Quite frankly, one gets very tired of your limited vocabulary. Time to back up your statements, or is that something one does not do in Australia?ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing limited is your understanding of Anderson and the real Anastasia, the Romanovs and Russian history. It's rather pathetic that you now choose, like all AA suporters to engage in person attack against Romanovs and others, rather than looking at content. Your discredited rubbish and ignorance has no place here. Take it back on to the yacht. Perhaps the seagulls might find it amusing. Finneganw 18:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

- Exactly. Chat, all those people who testified to helping AA and her fictional rescuer on their fictional journey were obviously liars. This should be completely disregarded in a factual article we are trying to limit in length.

- - As for the 'nice' Olga letters, they could have been written before she was sure, or when, as she said, she just felt sorry for her being so 'wretched.' On the other hand, they could be fake. After all, they came through Rathlef. They were said to have been lost in 1968 from AA's trunk in her shack in Germany, so they no longer exist. Chat says there are copies in Bella Cohen's collection, well how do we know Bella was truthful too? Additionally, while Vorres' book was years later, there is proof in the form of letters from Olga A. to Princess Irene and to a friend called "Mrs. B" that as early as Jan 1926 she completely denounced AA as a fake and said she got her info from people feeding it to her. Yes I have the sources for all this, it's on my site and I can produce it.Aggiebean (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to get your facts straight. Olga's letters did not come from Frau Rathlef, she only mentions "letter in warm terms". The letters were published in Gleb Botkin's book, and photo copies are kept at the Houghton Library at Harvard. I have no idea where you got the idea from that Bella Cohen had them. That Olga denounced AA in January of 1926 is no secret, that's when Gilliard, by his own admission, talked her into a denial of AA in the Danish press. This was after Olga had written several letters to AA, telling her that "you are no longer alone, and we shall not abandon you. Thinking of you all the time - I remember the times we were together. Longing to see you" etc etc. She would also give AA a personal photo album, not exactly a thing you would give a stranger. Later followed personal articles of clothing. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

YOU told me Bella Cohen had them, she was the one who wrote a pro AA article using them and allegedly made the photocopies (though there were no Xerox machines back then)Aggiebean (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I told you no such thing. Bella Cohen did not use these letters in her article, she only mentions that AA told her that she had a letter from her aunt under her pillow. I have no idea where you get this stuff from. Next time you accuse me of saying something, I suggest you back it up with proof, otherwise I will continue to call you a liar! ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Olga wrote letters out of pity, but she never ever recognised Anderson as her niece. That is pure unadulterated invention typical of AA supporters who refuse to accept reality. Yes ChatNoir24 it is all documented by Olga Alexandrovna. You sadly refuse to accept any of it and stay blind to reality. It's rather sad that you cannot understand basic content when it is so blatantly obvious. Finneganw 17:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the letter Olga A. wrote to Princess Irene of Hesse in Jan. 1926, only 2 and half months after meeting with AA. You can see she already felt the way she did in the Vorres quotes, and very unlike the way supporters claim. You can also see she clearly states that Gilliard and Shura as well as Volkov denied her, contrary to Rathlef's stories. Olga also tells that she has heard the rumor they accepted her but were told to deny her, and calls it a lie. She explains her position that AA was getting her info from meeting emgires, or being fed with info. This leaves no doubt that Olga's true position was that of the Vorres quotes and not what Rathlef claimed. This letter can be found on and sourced to Klier and Mingay, Quest for Anastasia, p. 149.

For nearly four years, they stuffed the head of this poor creature with our stories, showed her a large number of our photographs, etc. and one fine day astonished everyone with her 'memories'.

Mr. Gilliard, his wife (Shura) and my husband, and before us Volkov, have all seen and conversed with her, and they do not believe that she is our Anastasia. On the contrary, they (AA's supporters) state that we all recognized her and then we received a an order from Mama to say that she is not Anastasia. This is a lie! I believe that this story is fraudulent, but I think there are many people who believe it, but they are the ones who never knew the real Anastasia. During the four days we spent in Berlin, Mr. Gilliard and my husband saw all the Russians with whom she had stayed and they learned in this way many things of great importance. Here is one: they told them that she had learned the nickname "Schwibs' from an officer I met in the Crimea, who later came to Berlin. He was interested in the invalid and asked her if she knew this nickname and who gave her the name; naturally she was unable to reply. But later, she suddenly said: "My Aunt Olga called me 'Schwibs'! Everybody was astonished and made inquiries to find out if it was true.

Yes it is all out there. Sadly AA supporters can't see any of it as they choose not to. They really should stop engaging in slander against people who actually knew the real Anastasia. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna will be long remembered as a talented artist and sister of the last Tsar. Anderson and her ridiculous fraud are fading with each and every passing year. It's all over and totally exposed. Finneganw 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you never wondered why she waited almost three months before denouncing the person that she believed to be her niece? Without ever seeing her again? If I had not recognized anyone as my relative, I would certainly not have corresponded with the person for months and sent personal gifts for suddenly to denounce her for no reason. Something made her change her mind, and Gilliard admitted that he was the one who made her do it. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ever consider it didn't take her that long, that's just the date she wrote to Irene? Your conspiracy theory that they accepted her and denied her for money makes no sense, and needs to be stopped here and It has gone on long enough, started by Rathlef and Botkin, carried on by Kurth, and the reps of these people have suffered for no reason. You have no proof, as you always like to say. No one paid off Olga, she had no money! Here's what she said about her mother, in addition to denying it as a LIE in the letter above:

But the whole story is palpably false. I was convinced then, as I am now, that it is so from beginning to end. Just think of the supposed rescuers - vanishing into thin air, as it were! Had Nicky's daughter been really saved, her rescuers would have known just what it meant to them. Every royal house in Europe would have rewarded them. Why, I am sure that my mother would not have hesitated to empty her jewel-box in gratitude. There is not one title of genuine evidence in the story.

So, here we go again, making a message board of the talk page, and making a long mess of the article. Let's just get back to Dr. K's original plan okay?Aggiebean (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The only ones making a message board of the talk page, are you and your co-hort, refusing to see the truth. NOBODY has said that Olga denied her niece for money except you. She clearly accepted AA as her niece, her own writings tell us that. Also testimony from Herluf Zahle and Professor Rudnev back up Frau Rathlef's version of what happened at the Mommsen Clinic. Bella Cohen's article in the New York Times gives even more details of what took place, and Grand Duke Andrew wrote that "Gilliards version deviates very much from the truth." What Vorres wrote 40 years or so later, has very little in common with Olga's own testimony in Toronto (Hamburg). And the sentence about mother opening her jewel case is pure chutzpah. We all know what attitude that lady had towards AA. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Chat I'm afraid it is you and other AA supporters which cause it to turn into a message board thread, which we have been asked not to do. There is evidence on many boards elsewhere that it is YOU who causes the circular motion by continuing to quote the same old things over and over and drawing people into disagreements to refute it. I'd say we were all guilty, but things were running very smoothly around here and we were making real progress until the pro AA POV snuck back into the picture. As far as 'we all know what attitude Olga had' no we don't. Supporters tell a different story than she did, and I do not believe she was the liar. It is long past time to stop villanizing the woman and accept the reality that she did not believe AA to be Anastasia.Aggiebean (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT talking about Olga's attitude, but that of her mother. ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof of any 'attitude' toward AA by the old dowager. This was all invented by AA supporters.Aggiebean (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No proof? Surely you jest. Read Herluf Zahle's account of his meeting with the Dowager Empress, and you will see that the whole household was upset with him for even bringing up the subject of the invalid in Berlin. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here's an interview with a Danish newspaper soon after Olga met AA:

They pretend that she recognized me, but I want to tell you how it all happened: they had warned her of my visit. She herself acknowledged that they had said: 'On Tuesday you will be very happy. Someone is coming from Denmark.' Then, obviously, she could imagine the rest and wait for 'her aunt.' She was unable to reply to any of the small intimate questions which I put to her.Aggiebean (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So they had warned her of her visit, huh? What happened, was that they let Gilliard in first. She recognized him, even without his beard. Then they let Olga in to see if AA would mistake her for Shura, but she did not. When Shura later walked in, Olga pretended not to know her, and asked AA who it was. "Shura", replied AA. As for the small, intimate questions, she would answer some, and others she could not answer. Read Bella Cohen's interview with Olga and Shura, and you will see how many names and incidents she "remembered". And if Olga did not recognize AA as her niece, why did she repeat both to Zahle and Cohen that "My heart tells me that she is Anastasia"? And why on earth would she give a personal photo album to a stranger? And why would she write to her: "I remember the times we were together"? Last, but not least, remember that Olga herself told Zahle that Frau Rathlef's rendition of the meeting at Mommsen was "quite correct". If she had not recognized AA as her niece, there would have been no need for all the explanations afterwards, no need for trying to undo what went before. All she had to do, was to state that AA was not her niece, and that would have been the end of it. And the same thing with Gilliard, there would have been no need for a book and slander in the newspapers. All he had to do, was to state that AA was an impostor. But he did not, not until more than half a year had passed since their first meeting, and he was in cahoots with the Grand Duke of Hesse. Until then, he "would do all I can to assist you in the work conscious of my responsibility and in all good knowledge and conscience." Of course, none of this makes AA a Grand Duchess, but I think we should stick to the story and don't let hearsay from Vorres muddle the waters. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a rabid Anderson supporter is rather muddled yet again. Finneganw 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am stunned. Vorres 'muddled'? 'Hearsay?' What? No, sorry, we do not need to 'stick to' AA's discredited version of the story. We need to move beyond it. Time, science and history have buried it. We do not need this kind of delusion in the article. We need reality here.Aggiebean (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Those who won't learn from history are destined to repeat it

I see a bad precedence here and I want to point out this warning to those who were not here when the recently deleted long article was written. Everything we are posting, bringing up, discussing and disagreeing over was all in the old long article, and was the reason it became a source of edit wars, vandalism, constant battles and trouble that got us turned over to the admin page for mediation in the first place. We do not want to repeat the same mistakes and follow the same path that lead to nowhere but frustration. The fact that the talk page has gone from a constructive work zone to a message board discussion and rehash of AA's life and case proves once again this is what happens when we try to add too many contested details to the article. I really do feel the answer is to try to get back to the progress we were making with the brief article and consensus we had going. History has proven what will not work, and we were seeing what was working. Let's go back to the proposed article by Dr. K and the consensus. It's the only way to solve this problem and fix the article.Aggiebean (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason that the old article was ruined, was because of you and others like you added hearsay and wrong information, only to support your own PoV. You are terrified of the truth since it runs so strong in AA's favor. ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, Chat, everything Finneganw and I added was documented and I challenge anyone to go back and check the old edits and history if they don't believe me. It was Chat who made the sneak attacks of POV vandalism and he was often reprimanded for it. There is history of this as well.Chat, we've been through this over and over, and here and elsewhere, and you know it only leads in a circle. The point is, we need to stop fussing and move forward. The only way we can do that now is to go back to where we were making real progress, with the consensus moderated by Dr. Kay. Ever since the talk page went off on a tangent again, we have gotten nowhere, just like with the old article. We do not need to repeat the same old mistakes, we need to change and improve.Aggiebean (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What you added, was hearsay from Prince Christopher and Vorres. None of them met Anna Anderson, and Vorres description of what happened at the Mommsen clinic has nothing in common with Olga's own testimony in Toronto or with Rathlef's, Zahle's and Rudnev's descriptions. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems someone can't deal with reality. Vorres was the officially appointed biographer of the Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna. His work has NEVER been in question and is highly respected. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna was a real Grand Duchess and extensively recorded her thoughts about Anastasia, Anderson and other matters before death and earlier. None of the nonsense put out by Chat comes from Olga. Olga never ever recognised the preposterous Anderson. She did pity a sick woman for a time. Anderson was NEVER who she claimed to be. She had no genetic connection with the Romanovs or Alexandra Feodorovna. That has been repeatedly proven. Rathlef put out invented rubbish as a hack journalist. Anderson was never Anastasia so there are no memories. Olga openly ridiculed the mistakes made by Anderson and her supporters about Anastasia. It was easy for her to do so as she knew Anastasia from birth along with all other significant Romanovs. Anderson was Schankowska and knew nothing about it. That has been completely proven. After all Anderson had never been to Russia, could not speak Russian and that has been completely proven and does not rely on 'testimony; from questionable unverifiable sources. It's about time Chat you left here as you do nothing constructive at all. Considerable progress has been made in sorting out the article. Sadly there is just more of the same totally discredited rubbish in contravention of proven historical and scientific fact. It becomes more and more ridiculous. Rants and attacks on those who knew the reality without any idea are increasingly sad. Accurate content is required here and not unverifiable inaccurate fantasy. Typical behaviour of Anderson supporters is to attack those who actually knew the reality about Anderson. It's time to stop attacking the last Tsar's sister as unlike her preposterous attackers she knew Anastasia and could see right through the fraud of Anastasia along with a great many others. Another tactic is to attack Prince Christopher of Greece who knew all the significant Romanovs and other major figures from European Royal Houses. Once again there is an attack without any real knowledge. Of course some think they know better than any of these people which is a sign of a significant lack of knowledge and ability to conduct objective academic research. Finneganw 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Finneganw is exactly right. Chat's post proves his POV is completely out of touch with reality. He only believes the supporters, but it's time to accept that since Anderson turned out not to be Anastasia, it was the supporters who were wrong. History, time and science has proven who was wrong. Rathlef was an Anderson supporter who wrote stories about her, and all her writings are either fictional or embellished to help the cause. The proof is that everything she wrote ran contrary to what others claimed happened, and the others turned out to be right. Reading the Kurth chapter "Shadows of the Past" is a good example of proof that Rathlef was milking this story for all she could get from it. It's all about her claiming AA was 'remembering'- always after rubbing her head and stuttering the first letter of the word "T-T-Tobolsk!" "B-B-Botkin!" It reads like an emotional dime store novel about an amnesiac, but it's not true, and deserves no benefit of the doubt at all. AA was not Anastasia and had no memories. This was all fake, and Rathlef was just what Gilliard called her, AA's impresario. So claiming Olga's version disagrees with supporters only proves even more that the supporters were wrong. Chat is still trying to make a case for AA being genuine, but that is not true and it's only holding us up. Again, this is what has taken us off track, and it's time to avoid the AA nonsense, we know for a fact it was all a lie and get on with our work.Aggiebean (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely clear on the basic sources for Olga's supposed comments here, but don't many of them come from Zahle's account? Zahle may have believed that Anderson was Anastasia, but he was also an ambassador, and it would seem mostly unlikely that he would make up embarrassing stories about his king's first cousin. At any rate, Massie seems to accept what you describe as the discredited "Rathlef" version of Olga's visit. What do the other not-pro-Anderson sources (Welch, Klier and Mingay, etc.) say? Because this is really starting to resemble original research. john k (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Both Welch and Klier/Mingay use the "Rathlef" version since there is none other. They both borrow heavily from Kurth's book because this is the best researched book on the market. ChatNoir24 (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated earlier, Klier and Mingay state that the fact is the visitors were hestitant and not sure due to the emaciated condition of the claimant, which goes along with what makes the most sense, as I stated about the lost dog and the injured girls. So it took time to be sure, this is NOT the same thing as acceptance and 'back turning'/mind changing'. It continues to infuriate me that even to this day anyone would consider such a thing about Olga. Massie is just repeating what is in other books, this is not an endorsement. Unlike Klier, he offers no personal commentary. There is NO proof that Olga ever accepted her, this is all speculation by AA supporters. By even considering they may have merit, you are accusing Olga and her biographer Vorres of being liars, and sorry if someone is lying here it's clearly Rathlef.Aggiebean (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you call Rathlef a liar, you also have to include Herluf and Brigitta Zahle, Professor Rudnev and Bella Cohen, plus Olga herself, who stated that Rathlef's story was "quite correct". Quite an array of liars there. As for Olga, she clearly wrote to AA: "I am remembering the times we were together, when you stuffed me with chocolates, tea and cocoa." She remembered times spent with Franzisca Schanzkowska? I don't think so. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also very interesting was the invitation by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip to the Grand Duchess Olga to visit them onboard HMY Britannia when they were in Canada. They all knew the reality unlike the fraud. Of course they had access to extensive family archives and some of the best researchers in the world unlike the preposterous amateurs around Anderson/Schankowsa. Finneganw 02:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What? Who cares? What does this prove about anything? She was an elderly relation who had had a truly awful life, and the British royal family had felt guilty since 1918 about not having done anything to save her brother and his family. What does this have to do with Anderson, or with whether Olga at first believed that Anderson was Anastasia before changing her mind? Are you suggesting that if the royal family had thought that...I'm not sure what, that Anderson was Anastasia, that Olga had at one point believed Anderson was Anastasia...they wouldn't have invited Olga onto the yacht? We already know that the British royal family didn't think that Anderson was Anastasia (and, of course, she wasn't Anastasia), and I don't see why they would decide not to do a kindness to an old woman because they thought she was briefly taken in by a fraud thirty years earlier. All of Finneganw's points in this discussion are essentially non-sequiturs. john k (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it would appear some do not care otherwise they would not attack so vehemently. Nobody at all in the British royal family ever believed Anderson's fraudulent claims. In fact the British Royal Family did their utmost to assist those Romanovs they could. It was not possible to get Nicholas and his family out of Russia. Kerensky knew this hence his sending them to Tobolsk. The time for leaving was over. Nicholas II was responsible for his own fate and that of his wife and children. His actions or inaction caused the downfall of the Romanov dynasty. Looks like some need to even do some reading about his reign. If the British Royal family had not cared they would not have assisted those Romanovs they could for a great deal of time. No doubt some would have preferred to see that dynasty collapse as well. How blatantly absurd. Don't try to shift the blame as it simply is not credible or rational. Finneganw 08:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

HOW IRONIC! I called this section don't let history repeat itself because I saw this page going the way of all those in the past, and dozens of message board threads. Even though I begged to get back on topic, what have we got but more people coming in, arguing pro AA points and dragging the discussion out again. The reason we are here is to get back to work on the article, you know the one we were making progress on until the consenus and serious work was disrupted by the return of all the pro AA arguments and tit for tat quote matching that caused all the problems in the first place. Please do not ignore this plea again and go back to posting more negative, unverifiable accusations against Olga A. The fact is this woman spent decades fighting against this impostor and she got no money for it. That alone should clear her rep. Please, Dr. K, do something to get this task back on track. I'm dizzy from the merry go rounds.Aggiebean (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What you really mean is: Stop presenting all arguments that I don't agree with. ChatNoir24 (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again the bizarre tactics of the AA supporters surface. Totally discredited they turn to personal attack of the dead and the living. Finneganw 05:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre tactics is right. Stalling and going in circles avoids the inevitable that it must be stated AA was fake. And Chat, your arguments aren't just ones I don't agree with, they are things that are wrong that do not belong in the article. Now, please, let us get back to work. We can rehash the AA and Olga story for years and nothing will ever change. We were making progress, we need to get back to honest work on the consensus of the proposed article. Please.Aggiebean (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)