Talk:Anna Anderson/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Back to it, lads!!

Well, I see the 2 Chowder-heads are going to begin this fact war all over again...science has spoken on this issue. As to the DNA, I have always said I stand convicted but not convinced, but it is the scientific conclusion and WE MUST ACCEPT IT. Can't you two get back to reason?75.21.156.77 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, forgot something helpful: can you possibly re-arrange the paragraphs so they are not quite so blinding? It all looks good as-is, except for that amateurish cramming of run-on sentences coupled with staggering paragraph lengths. You can add spaces here and there, you know.75.21.156.77 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Further suggestion

Though it seems all are gone fishin' for the duration...I'd like to propose a small section that deals with what the survival of HIH Anastasia meant to the public. NOT that Anna Manahan was Anastasia, but a factual address of the issue that her story was the original "20th century fairy tale" in all ways. This article is factually wonderful and I think well-organised. I even reconsidered my whining about the long paragraphs--they aren't bad. However, the thing is running-on, banging on about where she was in which year, who said what, and all sorts of confusing nonsense. Scolarship, yes. Nonsense, also yes. Pare it down a bit, and add some more culture to this wet week-end of an article, will you?75.21.156.77 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The point of the article redo was to pare it down and give less blow by blow details, yet it turned out to be even more devoted to petty details. The only difference is that it is now very POV in favor of AA, and before it was more clear that the woman was a fraud all along. This one leans in the direction of hoping the reader will make up his/her mind that she 'may' have been real, and that is very wrong for an article that is supposed to be factual. It is not written like an encyclopedia article at all but as a novel written by Kurth. I was checking other encyclopedias and real ones don't even have an article on her. I guess they feel she doesn't deserve one. This article is nothing but a glowing tribute to her, which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia article based on real facts needs to be. All consideration that most of what was said by supporters is now bunk and should be ignored and 'consider the source' it was fake but it is taken far too seriously here. It is also silly there are two pictures of supporters. Again the article needs to be deleted and rewritten, hopefully next time by someone impartial and not influenced by those in favor of Anderson and her cause. This article is much much worse than the one that was up before! It needs to be much shorter, leave out the flowery language and descriptions- this is not a novel, and state basically she pretended to be Anastasia, had a lawsuit, lost, died. That's all you need to say. Her entire life should have been summarized in one short bio paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.111.222 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 September 2009

The article looks pretty good to me. I don't see what's wrong with giving a detailed account of her life - where she lived at different times, the major events, and so forth. And I don't think that the article as it stands gives any sense that she was anything but an impostor. john k (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Essentially I agree with john, and I actually don't see that the article needs much done to it--it's quite fine, it only took 3 years to get here.

As to the invisible post above, you are totally out of line and apparently can't read. The article doesn't say Anna was really Anastasia, and it is quite clear that the article tells the accurate truth. It notes several times Anna was a fraudster or else deeply disturbed.

We all probably know who the invisible anon is above...anything less than insulting, nasty remarks about Anna will not satisfy her. What "encyclopedias" the poster has been reading...I wonder. Anything on HIH Anastasia will yield at least mention of false posers and fraudsters.

At any rate, good article. I don't see why it should need anything more, unless new resources or news present themselves, which I doubt.75.21.156.77 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't doubt too long! As a matter of fact, according to insiders at the AP site, a book on Franziska and how she pulled off the fraud with the help of supporters is in the works right now, and should be published by the end of the year. New information has been found explaining it all. There is no more doubt she was Franziska and the entire claim was faked by her and her supporters. Hopefully this should finally put an end to all the denials, doubts and double talk and officially discredit most of the supporter-based sources used in this article with something other than 'original research.' The end is nigh!

Well Greg and Penny have not made any public announcement about their new book, much less a publication date. The end of the year? That's 3 months away so I doubt very much if it will be published by then. Why don't we wait and SEE what it says? And how about letting us know who you are instead of posting totally anonymously? I always find it suspect when people won't put their name to their opinions. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Berenberg and Romanov quotes

Would you please give a valid reason, other than POV censorship, as to why the comments by Berenberg-Gosseler and Prince Michael Romanov keep being deleted? They are a very intersting and important side of the case, to explain how some knew she was a fraud all along but no one would listen. The old excuse was 'too heavily weighed to give a whole paragraph to HIM' when if anyone had read it, they would have seen it wasn't a 'him' but a 'they.' The paragraph was then pared down to one sentence from each man, which is what the others had, so now what is the excuse, other than some here just do not like the negative view of Anderson's claim presented by the men quoted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.118.21 (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

TThey're not there anymore, someone reverted to the old version without them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.118.21 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see now someone has added the Prince Michael quote in the middle, but the Berenberg-Gosseler quote is still missing. it's excellent, because him telling us how the media purposely ignored the opposing side is a big factor in why the public was more sympathetic to her cause, didn't know the other side, and why her claim lasted so long and was so popular.If the people had heard the rebuttals, they may have better understood she was really a fake. Berenberg-Gosseler was the opposing attorney on the case for 12 years, and his view is important and there's no reason not to include it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.118.21 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Berenberg-Gossler quote is not removed. Why don't you actually read the article or look at the edits? DrKiernan (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They were put at the very end, so that's where I looked, if you moved them why didn't you say so? The Prince quote is moved to the middle of the conclusion, and I never expected the other one to be moved to the assessment.

There is still much important info left out, and much flowery nonsense left in. It still needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.111.222 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained to you how to use the "History" tab and the "Compare selected revisions" button to examine edits to a page [1]. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to constantly repeat myself. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Only one small change: The pianist Rachmaninov should be changed to the COMPOSER Rachmaninov. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer pianist. He rarely composed after leaving Russia, and was at this time predominantly a performer. DrKiernan (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense. "The "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini" was composed by the pianist Serge Rachmaninov." ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anna Anderson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be conducting a review of this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't feel that this article meets the criteria for GA at this time. Please keep working on the article, incorporating my suggestions where possible, and feel free to renominate at a later time. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• "claimed that the unknown woman was the Grand Duchess Tatiana of Russia, one of the four daughters of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia: Tatiana, Olga, Maria and Anastasia" - could remove the final list of names
• "lady of waiting" - is this correct, or should it be "lady-in-waiting"?

• Changed

• Where was von Kleist's home? Dalldorf or elsewhere?

• Added

• Given that you link to Von Kleist for a family name, shouldn't Kleist be referred to instead as von Kleist?

• Removed

• "publicizing her cause.[3][61] Botkin's publicity" - repetitive

• Removed

• Some more wikilinks would be helpful, but some are already duplicated
• Is the correct spelling Schanzkowska or Schanzkowski?

• Both. Schanzkowska is female, Schanzkowski male.

• Some problems with missing / extraneous hyphens - see WP:MoS

• Reviewed

• "With both Jack and Anderson in failing health" - both have the same last name at this point, yet Manahan is not used after being referred to as her legal name

• Referring to her as "Anastasia" is too confusing, because she is not Anastasia: she is an impostor. Referring to both of them as "Manahan" is also confusing.

• "For example, mitochondrial DNA can be used to match maternal relations" - no, that is what mitoDNA is used for. What I think you mean is that Philip is one example of the people whose mitoDNA did not match

• Changed.

• Avoid one-sentence paragraphs

• Removed

• The pets were "put to death"? Why not the more conventional "euthanized"?

• Sources say "gassed", "destroyed" and, in Anderson's own words, "murdered". Euthanasia implies the animals were ill and were humanely put out of their misery. That does not seem to be supported by the sources.

• The "Conclusion" section is quite essay-like and, IMO, unencyclopedic. The material should be integrated into other sections or deleted

• Moved.

Accuracy and verifiability

• "could be used selectively" is OR, but saying "were used selectively" with a reference is verifiable

• Changed

• Citations needed for:

• She was rescued by a police sergeant and admitted to the Elisabeth Hospital in Lützowstrasse
• Added
• Tschaikovsky stayed in the houses of acquaintances, including Kleist, Peuthert, a poor working-class family called Bachmann
• Added
• In 1927, under pressure from his family, Valdemar decided against providing Tschaikovsky any further financial support, and the funds from Denmark were cut off
• Added
• a wealthy Park Avenue spinster happy to host someone she supposed to be a daughter of the Tsar
• Added
• In 1932, the British tabloid News of the World published a sensational story accusing her of being a Romanian actress perpetrating a fraud
• Added
• From 1938, lawyers acting for Anderson in Germany contested the distribution of the Tsar's estate to his recognized relations, and they in turn contested her identity.
• Added
• but the Nazi government had arranged the meeting to determine her identity, and if accepted as Schanzkowska she would be imprisoned
• Added
• Her Irish Wolfhound and 60 cats were put to death
• Added
• The couple lived in separate bedrooms
• Added
• William Preston, was appointed as her guardian by the local circuit court
• Added
• In January she may have had a stroke
• Added
• They were identified on the basis of both skeletal analysis and DNA testing
• Added
• It did not match that of the Duke of Edinburgh or that of the bones, confirming that Anderson was not Anastasia.
• Citation at the end of the sentence
• Most impostors were swiftly dismissed
• Added, with "swiftly" removed
• as the play progresses hints are dropped that she could be the real Anastasia, who has lost her memory. The viewer is left to decide for themselves whether Anna really is Anastasia
• Added

• Should be consistent in what information is included in Notes

• The references are referred to in Notes by abridged form by author only, with the exception of Kurth's two books which need to be disambiguated by using the titles. Other sources are given in full.

• The 1967 Massie may be only in References, but I can't be sure since some of the titles are absent in Notes

• Removed

• Vorres is only in References

• Removed

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

• The first External link may be a conflict of interest, as the author of the site is a major contributor to this article

• WP:EL states that "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." may be considered for inclusion. If this site is to be removed, then all must be removed because otherwise all the sites listed will favor the fringe view that Anderson was Anastasia, and we must avoid undue weight on particular points of view.

• While it is obvious that the editors have tried to maintain a neutral POV, the article has some significant issues with non-NPOV wording / phrasing

• No examples given.

• Multiple problems with WP:WTA (and to a lesser extent WP:Weasel)

• No examples given.

Stability

• This article has a long history of instability coupled with long "rants" on the talk page.

• One of the editors involved, User:Finneganw, is now topic banned, and another, User:RevAntonio, has invoked right to vanish [2]. Further extensive disruption is unlikely.

• While there have been improvements of late, stability is still an issue

• The content of the article now is largely identical to the content of the article since the most recent expansion (pasted from the article workspace on 24 August 2009, three weeks ago).

• A "story" tag has sporadically appeared during the reviewing process

• A single POV-warring editor should not be taken into consideration, when the majority of editors are agreed that the biography section is written as a biography not as a story.

Images

• While the description says the infobox photo was taken in 1922, it was published in 1929, and thus by my understanding doesn't fit the criteria for the tags it has. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do so on the file page

• Corrected.

• The name of the woman on that image doesn't match the spelling of her name in the infobox. Why?

• The caption on the image is in German or French. The infobox is in English.

• Why was a frame added to OTMA1915-2.jpg prior to upload? The source has none

• Image removed.

• The first link on the file page for OTMA1915-2.jpg is broken

• Image removed.

• From what I can gather from the second link on that file page, copyrights "belong to the authors or their legal heirs and assigns". Do you have evidence to the contrary?

• Image removed.

• The description on Franziska Schanzkowska.jpg says it was first published in 1927, thus making the PD tag incorrect

• Corrected.

• Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner in Anastasia trailer.jpg is a screenshot; thus, a) it is incorrectly tagged, and b) it requires a non-free use rationale

• It is a screenshot from a trailer made before 1976, and distributed to the public either without a copyright notice or with a copyright that has since expired, since copyright was not renewed. On wiki it is assumed that such works are in the public domain.

Comments from an IP

(After I finished my review, I noticed this comment that had appeared on my talk page while I was working here. I have reproduced it below for your consideration, and have also left a note on the anon's talk to inform him/her of this. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Before you consider it a 'good article' please consider that it uses sources now discredited due to the fact that she is a proven imposter. Just because there is no other source saying in so many words that they are discredited does not mean we can't use a little common sense and logical deduction. The source "I, Anastasia", used heavily as a source in this article currently, is a work of fiction, and borrows heavily from other sources on the family and quotes the history given and passes if off as her her 'memories." I can give you examples. Parts of it are paraphrased directly from such books as "Last Days of the Romanovs" by Robert Wilton (1920) We had previously agreed to avoid such bogus sources, and were told by other admins they were not acceptable, but now suddenly it's being used as a valid source? Something is terribly wrong here. The article is approved of by Chat, who has been banned and blocked several times over the last 2 years, but now is suddenly the only one to give his consensus. The article omits much important info which proves she was an impostor all along, avoids damaging quotes against her, and never mentions denials against her unless followed immediately by 'however this person said she was genuine!' This is what Chat the big AA supporter has been trying to do to this article for years, but other posters and admins did not even consider it. Unfortunately, since the arrival of JohnK, Dr. K became very biased and basically ran off anyone dissenting, so the 'consensus' was NOT achieved as claimed. Also, some of the language used is more like a novel than an encyclopedia, such flowerly nonsense as 'the unknown woman stated, simply and accurately' for example. If all you're looking for is something sourced correctly the old article qualified. Please consider that not every source is a valid source and that wikipedia should stand up for truth and accuracy in its articles, not the misleading wording and agenda of a few who cannot let the Anderson legend die, and those who back up the positions of others, right or wrong. It would be a disservice to the millions of readers to give this biased work that completely shut out the more logical points of view in the 'talk' discussion a GA rating. Please consider what I've said before making that mistake. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.110.141 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

These comments have already been responded to multiple times. The editor above is trying to bias the article by excluding opposing viewpoints, removing balance, and insulting other editors.

To be specific:

• von Nidda's commentary on "I, Anastasia" is a secondary source, as already said here: [3]. It is not a bogus source if used selectively, appropriately, and in addition to other sources and balancing material. The IP even admits: "there is no other source saying in so many words that they are discredited".
• The claim "Chat, who has been banned and blocked several times over the last 2 years," is untrue. User:ChatNoir24, to whom the IP is referring, has never been banned or blocked, see [4].
• As the IP admits there are at least three editors "Chat" "JohnK" and "Dr. K", who disagree with the editor's viewpoint, but the editor persists in pushing their own agenda against the majority consensus view.
• The claim that "simply and accurately" is "flowery nonsense" is untrue. The statement is supported by two sources, one of which is written by John Klier, who was a Professor of History at University College London [5][6]. The other sources used are of a similar high quality, such as Robert K. Massie, who is a former Rhodes Scholar who studied history at Yale and Oxford before winning the Pulitzer Prize for biography. These are obviously reliable sources. The IP is merely trying to remove sourced material with which they disagree in an attempt to bias the article to their own original viewpoint.
• The claim that the "old article qualified" as a better article than this one can be easily dismissed simply by looking at the version which the IP prefers: [7]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias is in this article, clearly, it's in the form of ChatNoir and Dr. K. I do not advocate 'removing sourced material', merely changing 'the unknown woman stated, simply and accurately, "I never said I was Tatiana" to something like "she then claimed she never said she was Tatiana." "Simply and accurately" is book/novel language, not encyclopedic. Of course she denied being Tatiana, AFTER she was refuted by Baroness Buxhoeveden. Had Bux fallen for the charade, she would have remained Tatiana for life. It is the language used that I object to, not the content.

Von Nidda's book should be completely disregarded as it is largely a work of fiction. How can you have an 'autobiography' of "Anastasia" when she's not? Much of the book is based on alleged 'memories' that are actually information from Romanov sources passed off as her recollections, but are obviously not. This borders on plagierism, and therefore the book is discredited. I haven't seen much use of Ian Vorres' Olga bio which was heavily used in the past versions but ignored here because Chat doesn't like it because it is against AA, and Welch's new book, which includes things that were always there but conveniently avoided by biographers who chose to present AA as Anastasia. Earlier versions heavily refererenced Welch's "Romanov Fantasy: Life at the Court of Anna Anderson" and now it is barely used.

Yes, ChatNoir24 has been warned many times before as well as reprimanded by several other mods in the past. He also has used other names in the past including plain ChatNoir, which, too ironically, appeared immediately after his real name was blocked for disruption. All anyone has to do is read the back history of the talk page to see that until Dr. K took over, no one agreed with Chat or took him seriously. The fact that he and IP/Rev approve of this article proves that it is not what it should be. Looking back, all other admins besides Dr. K have had issues with Chat and never took his side. So now what's wrong with this picture that he's now the golden boy and all others are run off?

There is NO CONSENSUS on this article as claimed. Two of the people who were strong, longtime contributors were literally run off by Dr. K clearly letting it be known nothing posted by them was going to be considered, and that only his opinion mattered. I do want to say fairly that Dr. K was very fair until the arrival of JohnK at which point he became totally subservient to JohnK's view which was also the view of ChatNoir 24 and IP/Rev. (sympathetic to Anderson) I feel this is personal bias, backing a friend over strangers, and not good for the article.

I have dealt with Anderson supporters/sympathizers on many sites over several years, and they are all ultimately tossed or run off by the admins of such sites and boards. Check out the Royal Forums for example. The goal of the Anderson supporter/sympathizer is not to openly state she was Anastasia, because they know they cannot do that in light of the DNA. Their ploy is to fill the article with as much ambiguous jargon and pro Anderson commentary from supporters, ignoring or watering down things that proved she was an imposter all along, in the hopes that the reader will say to themselves 'wow if she had that much in her favor maybe that DNA is wrong'. (notice the wording in it now never allows a negative comment about her from a detractor unless it's followed immediately by "HOWEVER this person swore she was genuine" THIS IS THE OLDEST LINE USED BY CHAT ON MANY BOARDS OVER THE YEARS AND REEKS HEAVILY OF HIM AND HE IS AN AA SUPPORTER!) The Anderson supporter/sympathizers' position of 'let the reader make up their own mind' is wrong. This is not a mystery show, this is an encyclopedia article. The goal of it should be to present factual, straightforward detailing, free of discredited, outdated info, doubletalk and ambiguity so that the readers will have their minds made up for them because the reality of the subject is undeniable. Anderson was an impostor, her claim was fraudulent, and that needs to be clearly shown here.

I propose an alternate write of this article and then put them both up for a vote by an impartial panel that does not include Dr. K or JohnK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.111.222 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need this? I propose that Annie signs her name instead of making "anonymous" postings. This article is generally pretty good, it's factual and it points out that AA is considered to be an imposter, while still showing that many people believed her. Why be scared to show that there were people who knew the real Anastasia who believed her? It looks like they were wrong - so what? Their opinions are worth repeating - after all if no-one of any note had believed her, we wouldn't even know who she was.Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim that she was Tatiana

Both Klier (p. 95) and Kurth (p. 26) say that Anderson "simply and accurately" said, "I did not say I was Tatiana". In addition, Massie also says (The Romanovs pp. 163–164) that she always claimed to be Anastasia, and that it was others who said Tatiana.

I don't contest the removal, but I will contest any further attempt to introduce material suggesting, implying or saying that Anderson claimed to be Tatiana. According to the sources used in the article, she didn't. DrKiernan (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, 'simply and accurately' is language used in a BOOK, not an encyclopedia article. You quoting it from books only proves my point even more strongly. I never said she claimed to be Tatiana. She never claimed to be anybody, it was always her supporters doing it for her and her going along for the ride. Again, it is not the info I am trying to remove but the flowery language that belongs in a novel, not an article, wording that makes it sound POV in favor of AA which the article should not be. I suggest 'the unknown woman stated, simply and accurately, "I never said I was Tatiana"' be changed to something like "after being refuted by Baroness Buxhoeveden, she then claimed she never said she was Tatiana." I also still advocate an alternate article and a vote on both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.113.23 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 21 September 2009

Both of them use the phrase "simply and accurately"? At any rate, I had no intention of suggesting, implying, or saying that Anderson claimed to be Tatiana. But the phrasing did seem somewhat POV, and is unnecessary - doesn't my wording make the same basic point? I don't like the proposed "claimed she never said she was Tatiana," because we don't have any reliable sources which suggest she ever claimed to be Tatiana, so it seems her statement that she had never said she was Tatiana is, strictly speaking, accurate. john k (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand why we have this disagreement about AA stating that she "never said I was Tatiana" in the light of the statements of nurse Thea Malinovski and Dr. Chemnitz, who both testified that AA came out as Anastasia already in the fall of 1921. And since DNA has verified the fact that AA was an impostor, why are we arguing? Her life was what it was, like it or not. She was believed to be Anastasia by scientists, family members and friends, and her story is fascinating. And she certainly believed in the story herself. But DNA is the final word on her identity, so why squabble about little details? Is the DNA so unreliable that we have to censor her biography in order to bolster its valitidy? ChatNoir24 (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes John, they both use the same three-word phrase and quote:

Kurth: "I did not say I was Tatiana," Fräulein Unbekannt remarked, simply and accurately.

Klier: Some days after the fiasco, Anna simply and accurately said: 'I did not say I was Tatiana.'

However, I do not object to the way you've phrased it. My comment is directed at Aggiebean/76.104..'s proposal rather than yours. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A NEW TACK MIGHT HELP

Do you know what AA has that is most notable? It is that she was a fraudster or insane and manipulated--a 'minor' criminal. But she was world famous, had a huge following that still exists in a trickle, and is still controversial. Who else is like that? Well, John Dillinger, Demara the Impostor who was played on film by Tony Curtis, Madame Blavatsky and Grigory Rasputin. If you think, you'll see why I choose these bios as comparable to Franziska. So why not GO READ THEIR BIOS IN A REAL ENCYC then use it as a template to restore some sanity here? Are you honestly going to keep arguing stupid shit like whether this idiot claimed to be Tatiana or whatever? She was a fraudster with a huge following and made a massive impact on our culture...isn't that enough to lay this out and lay it to rest??75.21.156.77 (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

...and I say all this because the article is a bit run-on, also a bit unnecessarily padded. We hardly need quotes to be described, as if this were a screenplay draft (i.e., under "Assessment": "...her own idiomatic English..."). It lends neither understanding nor knowledge of the subject in general. Can you imagine such an idiotic turn of phrase in an article about Dillinger?75.21.148.15 (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still grammatically ugly, folks. Awkward, sometimes a bit adolescent, but definitely good, definitely getting there. Let's just try to refine the language so it doesn't look like a typical rant from this page. And THANK GOD everyone is ignoring aggiebean!!!!76.195.81.239 (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fictional portrayals

Can someone illuminate for me why my addition of the film "Fashions of 1934" keep getting deleted? Though it is no big-time film, it is vital because it has a character, an American con artist posing as a Russian noblewoman. Though they don't overdo the character, is there any doubt who that character is supposed to be? As such, it belongs in the VERY long list of fictional portrayals you people have chosen to generate. After all, it is a rather honest-looking portrayal of Anna, and the character's name is very close to "Anna". Any doubts, go to [8]75.21.148.15 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Coached by Melnik?

It is a very, very strange statement. Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann was the only chronichler of AA's "memories", and she filled several chapters in her book with them years before AA even met Tatiana Botkin. It kind of reminds me of the statement made by Gilliard that Frau Rathlef had "hypnotized" Tatiana Botkin, though the two ladies actually never met. ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The two citations supporting this statement are given earlier in the sentence: Godl, John (25 March 2000), Remembering Anna Anderson, Boise, Idaho: Archimandrite Nektarios Serfes, retrieved 3 July 2009 and Gilliard, Pierre (1929) La Fausse Anastasie quoted by von Nidda in his commentary on I, Anastasia, p. 198. DrKiernan (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like nothing but speculation to me, considering that neither Gilliard, nor Godl were anywhere near Tatiana Botkin or Anna Anderson when they met. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tatiana Botkin herself said that Anderson had a defective memory and that she had to be "led and directed". DrKiernan (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she had problems finding her way back to her room alone, she could not distinguish the cards when playing solitaire, and her German was just a "string of words put together". Not a word about being helped with memories. AA was, in fact, the one who confirmed the fact that Tatiana's father had performed nurse's duties during their period of measles, not the other way around. And since Tatiana was not an intimate of the court, but only played with the Tsar's children at Livadia and otherwise just met them almost daily around town, how come she knew so much about the private lives of the Imperial Family? ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Both Gilliard and Godl say she was coached. The sentence is justifiable, reasonable, and verifiable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clipping

Some posts have been removed of the most recent; they're mine and I can remove them if I wish. No one cares here anyway.76.195.83.35 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I believe the wording "the rest of her family" and "all seven members of the imperial Romanov family" are confusing because the Romanov family was far larger than the seven murdered that day. I propose changing it to "parents and siblings" and "the Tsar, Tsarina and all five of their children". DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the proposed artible, and came across this line: "Tatiana Botkin had met Grand Duchess Anastasia as a child". Tatiana Botkin was actually one of the last people to see the Grand Duchesses since she followed them into exile and stayed across the street from them in Tobolsk. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Added "and had last spoken to her in February 1917." An alternative would be "and had last seen her from a distance in about April 1918." DrKiernan (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"and if accepted as Schanzkowska she would be imprisoned. The Schanzkowski family refused to sign affidavits against her, and she was released"

I don't think anybody told her that she would be imprisoned. There is a sentence in Klier's book saying that she would be incarcerated, but without any reference. She was also not "released" after the confrontation, she just walked away from the whole thing in anger. (It is interesting to see that, in the 1950's, when the statute of limitations was up regarding any possible punishment for impersonating another person, none of the Schanzkowskis were willing to identify AA as their sister.)ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the source for the threat of imprisonment is Klier (like you, I don't know where he got it from originally). I've corrected "released" to "no further action was taken" but I don't mind "walked away a free woman" or similar. DrKiernan (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In spite of this pathetic 2-man band, the article looks pretty good, miracle of miracles. Can you get on with the major final revisions and stop chattering about these inanities? Don't think I've stopped observing your weird shenanigans here. After three years a good entry, and you have to sustain this idiotic talk page.75.21.117.148 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you consider it a good article, it's pro AA and that's what you've always wanted. In the past, such a travesty of reality would never have been considered, but now you've finally found a mod who will do your bidding. The only way consensus is reached on this pathetic farce is to run off anyone who disagrees by telling them you aren't going to listen to them. What a way to do business, especially when they were the logical side. It's already almost as long as the one that was deleted for being too long, and far more contentious. An Anna Anderson supporter's dream come true, but it reads like a flowery novel in her favor instead of a matter-of-fact, to the point encyclopedia which it was supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.111.101 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To offer you a shot-in-the-arm, I think the above poster is a four-alarm trouble-maker. It was not I who posted that piece of unreasoned prose. I cannot see anything "pro"-Anna Anderson, because the article contains facts and sources. That is PRO-TRUTH. My only beef with Kiernan and Chat-the-Befuddled is the insistence on this very unhelpful talk page and its jagged, broken line of reasoning.75.21.107.7 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems that all results of photo, ear and handwriting analysis are being swept under the carpet. One can only wonder why.ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Covered by "physical evidence, such as comparisons of facial characteristics, which alternately supported and contradicted Anderson's claim, could be used selectively to either bolster or counter the belief that she was Anastasia." DrKiernan (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the only serious photographic comparison which came out "against", was the one undertaken by professor Bischoff, who was given a picture of Olga instead of Anastasia for his comparison. Also, the DNA from Anna Anderson's blood did not match that of Karl Maucher.ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The sequence derived from the blood smear is nuclear STR DNA. The sequence derived from Maucher is mitochondrial. Obviously, they do not match: nuclear STR DNA is entirely different from mitochondrial DNA.

There is nuclear STR DNA from the Romanovs. It does not match the sequence derived from the blood smear. If the blood sample is Anderson's, then this would confirm that Anderson was not Anastasia.

The problem arises because the nuclear STR DNA from the intestine does not match the nuclear STR DNA from the blood smear. So, if you wish to include the blood smear reports, then you will need to note that, in contrast to the published reports, even the scientist that performed the analysis (Charles L. Ginther) questioned both the provenance of the smear source material and the purity of the blood sample. In addition, Michael Thornton, who held power of attorney for Anna Anderson and was a friend of Dick Schweitzer's, declared that the blood smear sample "is false. It is not from Anna Anderson." He also claimed that the report on the blood smear sample was "riddled with factual errors". Thornton does accept the intestine and hair as genuine, and believes Anderson was Schanzkowska. The blood smear was not covered by a cover-slip and was completely open to the atmosphere. It is certainly contaminated, and was poorly labelled. This leaves its authenticity open to considerable doubt. This is presumably why the analysis of it has never been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. This compares rather starkly with the multiple analyses performed by multiple laboratories in multiple countries by multiple scientists with strong reputations working with the other samples who have published in prestigious journals. DrKiernan (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the comments made about DNA are clearly wrong. Nuclear DNA is mixed and matched between the parents and every individual, except identical twins, has unique DNA. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother and doesn't mutate all that often. There are large numbers of people with the same mitochondrial DNA. If two people have quite different mitochondrial DNA, then they are not maternally related. Therefore Anderson was apparently not a Romanov. On the other hand, if two people DO have the same mitochondrial DNA, it does NOT prove they are closely related. There could be a million Poles with the same mitochondrial DNA if that particular strain of DNA has not mutated recently. So you cannot validly conclude that Anderson was definitely related to her supposed Schankowska nephew on the basis of mitochondrial DNA.Eregli bob (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From Massie's "The Romanovs": He (Professor Bernd Herrmann) sent this DNA to Ginther to sequence and obtain a profile. Ginther found that this DNA did not match the Hessian profile, nor did it match the Schanzkowska profile as derived from Margaret Ellerick.ChatNoir24 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. If you look at the previous page (p. 233) it says "[Ginther] extracted mtDNA from a blood sample, sent to him by Remy, taken from a woman named Margaret Ellerik. (Mrs. Ellerik was a niece of Franziska Schanzkowska..." There was never any nuclear STR DNA from the Schanzkowskis. Ginther is a mitochondrial DNA specialist and he failed to obtain DNA from the blood smear. Herrmann is a nuclear STR DNA specialist, and he did obtain DNA, but it was nuclear not mitochondrial. The comparison is irrelevant: clearly nuclear and mitochondrial DNA samples are not going to match, even if you take them from exactly the same tissue sample from the exact same person. DrKiernan (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is some interesting reading from Dr. Ginther on another website: http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=2987.15ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. That does confirm everything I've said. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here.ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Schanzkowski/Schanzkowska

The article uses both "Schanzkowski" and "Schanzkowska" for the Polish relatives' last name. Is it normal for a Polish last name to change like this, or is it a mistake? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

They are male and female forms, like Romanov and Romanova. DrKiernan (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I learn something new every day. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The eternal smarty-pants Kiernan ought to put this factoid into the article so people understand this little-known Polish/Slavic custom. I am not offended by the above query, but you know, this gets asked about 15 times a year in different places. Why not add it, or better yet, let's call an admin over and find out if there ought to be an offshoot entry that explains this surname custom.75.21.144.84 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is a "little-known" Polish-Slavic custom. Anyone who watches the Winter Olympics should be able to figure it out when the Russian skaters take the ice. The last names of most of the Russian female skaters will end in A. Ekaterina Gordeeva was a famous Russian skater. Her father's surname would be Gordeev/Gordeyev. I don't think we need to explain the obvious in an article like this. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well known in Russia, much less well known about Poles. Unlike Russia, there are many Polish family names which don't have variant forms.Eregli bob (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I jumped the gun a bit about how often this query arises, but I think nevertheless it ought to be clarified, so people consulting this article will know the family surname was Schanzkowski but the female version is Schanzkowska. And I hardly think the Olympics have to do with this subject!!75.21.144.84 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

F R A N Z I S K A S C H A N Z K O W S K A

There is a problem with the article's lead-in, and it ought to be fixed. Anna Anderson is good and correct, I like most of the article as well. However, Anna Anderson was an assumed "double impostor" name if you will...Anna to cover up the crazier claim of Anastasia.

What I'm getting at is this woman is known, is proved, to have been Franziska Schanzkowska (pick your spelling, the Kashoubs wouldn't mind if you wrote SHANZZZZKOFFSKAH). You should say that up front, like this: Anna Anderson was the most widely known alias of Franziska Schanzkowska, etc., etc.

I saw what Kiernan wrote about some sort of tantalizing lead to draw readers into the article, but all it does is obfuscate the fact of who Franziska was, what her real name was. It WASN'T Anna Anderson.76.195.83.35 (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read the article, other online pages and the entire discussion page (in two sittings). Her name has been shown to be Franziska Schanzkowska (whatever the spelling). Let us not entitle the Wikipage by a pseudonym without quickly stating the facts. Indeed, how does this person manage to have such a well-wrought biography page when the most notable things of her life were her lies and all the people that were duped. Her story ought to be just one paragraph under Great Frauds or Great Deceptions or Examples of Psychological Illness. COYW (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha, in TWO sittings. Message, folks? Anyway, Coyw, your above statement is about as tough reading as the article. You should study the four year history of the even bigger joke this article used to be! That is how it got to the form it is in now. To answer your prime query: all scientists, historians, wing-nuts, pro and con, know her as Anna Anderson. Even Massie knows and writes of her as such. There is nothing the matter with that pseudonym being used as the title. I myself often address this issue but Kiernan makes sure my issues are ignored75.21.115.123 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography section

Maybe everyone loves this type of thing, but I think the biblio section is a little on the loony side. Why are there links and for that matter why ISBN numbers carrying those hyperlinks? Is everyone so damned suspicious that the books are made-up references? For example, you cite A book by Massie, but there is another and I don't see it there. Does a citation become nullo because it isn't in print anymore? This thing may look neat and shiny, and I admit it is academically sufficient, but, c'mon people!

For my next trick: why does this article deliberately skirt the issues of those who did not believe the Imperial Family was murdered, such as the Dowager Empress herself? Also, there is a sore lack of recent findings that whatever happened at Ekaterinburg, the Russians there may not have told people the true story.

Don't go twisting this post into pro-Anna nonsense. I'm only asking why certain information is avoided. Is this the usual KiernanKowardice?76.195.83.61 (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

why does this article deliberately skirt the issues of those who did not believe the Imperial Family was murdered, such as the Dowager Empress herself?

I would assume because that is not particularly related to the subject matter of the article - unless the Dowager Empress specifically addressed the claim of this particular imposter (either pro- or con-), pulling in information that is more relevant in other articles just will bloat it up unnecessarily with issues addressed elsewhere. Articles need to stay on topic or there will be duplication and contradiction between related articles. --86.179.186.239 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but though you may assume this, my query is directed to the fact that people believed in Schanzkowska because there had been a generations-long belief that the Family did not die at Ekaterinburg. The Dowager Empress was one of those believers, though she didn't believe in F.S. for a second. My point is that I had long ago done some fine, brief writing with citations on the subject. The egoist Kiernan and others saw fit to remove references that are clearly made by Massie's biography. Now, I see these historical facts as contributing to Anna Anderson's popularity and the gullibility shown in her case.75.21.115.123 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The links and ISBN numbers are so that references can be found easily. Part of Wikipedia is verifiability; in other words, it allows the reader to find the references used and check them for the facts themselves. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, verifiability my toe! This article is on the loony side because so many people want it to look like their own strange ideas. Verifiability is fine, but that thing is a mess. And you people wonder why students get in trouble for using Wikipedia as a source!75.21.115.123 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly sentence

"Her biographers either ignore Malinovsky's claim,[26] or weave it into their narrative.[16]" Well, what other options are there? I know it's sourced, but as currently phrased this sentence is unintentionally humorous. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unintentionally humorous. Like the whole article and the work behind it.75.21.115.123 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I OBJECT II

It will do no good, but I have removed that external link.75.21.147.159 (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to whomever removed both external links. Well played...now if you'd just remove the rest of the burdensome minutae from this thing. God, the citations list is longer than almost any other listing here. There are many far more important entries here for this sorry sight to be given so much weight...Kiernan!

Example of what this entry ought to be

Everyone should read this excellent work to see what this entry at WIkipedia should resemble...and I note any link to it is blacklisted! Good show, WikiMorons!

"Was Anastasia Anna Anderson? The Survival of the Last Tsar's Daughter is Still Disputed"

by Kerry Kubilius

Myth, fact, grand conspiracy, or perplexing mistake? Anastasia Romanov, Anna Anderson, or Franziska Schanzkowska? The true identy of the woman who claimed to be Tsar Nicholas II’s youngest daughter has never been established firmly enough for either her detractors or her supporters. The existing controversy seems impossible with modern forensic science at its peak. However, Anna Anderson’s origins and identity have eluded scientists, royal Romanov relatives, and authors for decades.

Anna Anderson Anna Anderson is the name by which most know the self-identified Grand Duchess Anastasia. This woman was taken to a hospital in Germany in 1920, claiming to have been rescued from the Ekaterinburg massacre that left the Romanov family – Tsar Nicholas II, the Tsarina, their daughters, and their son Alexei – dead in a cellar. Some relatives believed her story, even after meeting her. Others were sure that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia.

DNA testing does, in fact, reveal that bodies were missing from the pit into which the Romanov bodies were thrown and burned. In addition, scars that Anna Anderson had on her body were said to have matched those that the Princess Anastasia had as well. Some relatives recognized her by her appearance; others felt that her physical similarities were not enough proof. Still others thought she looked nothing like Anastasia, though supporters have suggested that her Ekaterinburg ordeal could have changed her sufficiently – for example, some sources say that she was hit in the mouth with a bayonet and suffered from painful dental problems the rest of her life.

Franziska Schanzkowska Anna Anderson was also said to be Franziska Schanzkowska, a missing Polish factory employee. Unfortunately, even Franziska’s brother could not or would not say for certain whether the woman he met as Anna Anderson was his sister. DNA evidence is more closely linked with Franziska’s identity than it is the Romanovs’, but Anna Anderson’s supporters have insisted that DNA samples used were not from Anna herself.

Anna Anderson – Simply Crazy? Medical reports of disputed accuracy identified Anna Anderson as sane, though modern psychological study of her case might reveal otherwise. After all, Anna Anderson was discovered after a suicide attempt - an indication of mental instability in itself. In addition, during certain periods during her life, Anna Anderson refused to speak Russian, even though knowledge of the language was evidence in favor of her being Anastasia Romanov. If the woman had been in any sort of traumatic event – and reports of the scars on her body and head seem to indicate she had – there is a good chance some psychological damage occurred as well. Whether it was from an execution attempt in Ekaterinburg or trauma suffered by a Polish factory worker, the event that caused Anna Anderson’s body to show evidence of bullet wounds would have been life-changing to say the least."

Re-do it, and make it like the above excellent little squib. Your citations don't have to be so draconian and the powermongers who brought us the present piece of crap on Wikipedia will be redeemed.75.21.148.67 (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Fictional Portrayals

I have seen a rather ahead-of-its-time movie called "Fashions of 1934", starring William Powell and Bette Davis. In it is a character named Grand Duchess Alix, played by the delightful Verree Teasdale. This character is based on Anna Anderson. May we include this in the Fictional Portrayals section you have? I'm going to do so. It may be reverted if you must, but I think the portrayal is fascinating and belongs in that category. The movie itself partly revolves around the Grand Duchess character.ElKeKomeIKanta (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OOPS...addendum: PLEASE be respectful and make a note if you revert, stating why the film should not be included! I see no reason why not to include it. Plus the film itself is good and was vastly popular.ElKeKomeIKanta (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK Kiernan, I guess you win. Too bad it was the dirty way. I am advising you here, since I have no other recourse, that I have applied for administrative assistance. You are blocking me for being a sock puppet...on what grounds?DescribeAPlague (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, cherry-picking popular here

The "Fashions" film was removed from its well-written little spot. How very interesting. Does anyone else feel a spoilt brat is running the whole show here, or is everyone else indefblocked too?75.21.118.210 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anastasia Edit

The edit I have made is completely true and verifiable. The movie Anastasia is, of course, fiction. However, in regard to the plot of the story, the character of Anya is Anastasia. Anya (Anastasia) has no relation whatsoever to Anna Anderson. Unlike the live action film which actually has to do with Anderson, Anastasia centers around a girl who is actually the Romanov princess, not Anderson. Also, the girl does not claim to be the princess, but has amnesia and cannot remember her past. Of course the movie is fictitious, but that is also mentioned in the paragraph. To say my addition cannot be verified is completely wrong, because the entire base of the film, Anastasia, would disagree with that point. I clearly added a link, in fact from Wikipedia itself, for plot summary. If this link is not in the format of your liking, it is suggested that as editors on Wikipedia you make it work. I myself don't know just how you like it. I hope you can make this work. >A loyal editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.236.156 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen both the cartoon and the Ingrid Bergman movie and both are based to some extent on the legend of Anna Anderson though the girl actually is Anastasia in the cartoon version. It is your responsibility to find a clear citation for what you are trying to say, not merely to reference the wikipedia article on the animated film. Currently what you are providing isn't enough. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to find an external source for the information. You can find guidance on what constitutes an appropriate external source at WP:SOURCES. DrKiernan (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Validity

I will continue to look for a site or source to back up my fact. I am sorry if my edits have seemed at all disruptive. However, my attempts to find a reliable source have been unfruitful and I have been thwarted at any attempts to try and correct incorrect information posted on this section. Whether you have been following this issue or not, I will tell whoever it conserns that the section is trying too hard to try and relate Anna Anderson to the character "Anya" in the animated film, Anastasia. Anna Anderson is not "Anya" nor do their stories bear any similarities. Lately, due to the persistence of some editors, I have tried to revise my fact into certain formats that keeps it objective. Finding a source would be simple if the fact I was trying to back up was complicated and specific. However, the fact is extremely simple and general; therefore it is difficult to find a source that has what I need. It is simply a plot summary or movie review which contains the fact that the character "Anya" was the princess Anastasia in accordance with the plot. Perhaps even a site that states Anya has no relation to Anna Anderson. While I know that this is true, it is incredibly difficult to find this proof on the web. And to be frank, I have no clue how someone could even relate "Anya" or her story to Anderson at all. Just because Anderson claimed to be the princess Anastasia does not mean she played any part in film, no matter what people's opinions may be. I saw no proof to that addition. To link these facts is completely irresponsible, with all due respect. This section of the article is lacking validity and truth. Being an editor myself, I am disappointed with the indifference the staff is showing to this particular section. This is not the first article on Wikipedia I have stumbled upon to be inaccurate. I would not be dwelling on this topic if it did not thoroughly upset me. Not the article, itself, but the principle of it all. I am not sure how many more I will find like this one, but it bothers me just the same. The relationship trying to be preserved here is just plain wrong and nonexistent. Anderson is not involved in this movie, nor is she “Anya”, the main character of the film. Whether the writers of the 1997 film Anastasia got the idea at all from Anderson is irrelevant. There is no proof this, and in my professional opinion, this movie should be removed from the page altogether, or edited to make a slight relation to Anderson (only in the respect that the movie had to do with the princess Anastasia, like Anderson had claimed to be). Thank you, and I hope this issue can be resolved. >A loyal editor 74.101.236.156 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The producer/director of the film said that the film was a fairy tale based "on the play's success and Fox's film rights to that play", and that the play "was obviously based on the Anna Anderson claim."[9]

A critic (or in this case a fan) said "The creators of the movie Anastasia have also spliced in parts of the story of Anna Anderson."[10]

A user at the source which you yourself have used says: "Anastasia is based on the real story of Anastasia and Anna Anderson."[11]

You cannot find sources that say the 1997 cartoon is not related because it is related. DrKiernan (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, IP Man, DO NOT argue with Kiernan. Your view is OUT--he has spoken! In any case, no one cares about cartoons. Only these editors would make such a to-do about cartoon characters.75.21.149.52 (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DNA Tests

DNA tests are completely irrelevant to anything on this section. If the movie has no direct link to Anderson, adding something about DNA is completely beside the point. Nowhere does it say that this movie was based on Anderson. Adding something about DNA is unrelated. >A loyal editor 74.101.236.156 (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cartoons again! Let him have it, Kiernan Romanov!!75.21.149.52 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref

References are hugely redundant. Better to split them, and put the page numbers in the reference calls. Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Citing sources references should not be split. Citation overkill with large numbers of footnotes makes articles difficult to read. It is better to bundle them to reduce visual clutter. Also, template loads should be as minimal as possible to reduce page loading times. Otherwise, users on slow connections or old computers cannot access the page.

Furthermore, the guideline states "You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." You shouldn't be changing the consistent style already used in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Married to a dead body?

Given that she died in 1984, why does the data state that she was married to Jack Manahan till 1990? Unless he was a necro...203.82.94.8 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. You've misread it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

An "Early life" section for Franziska Schanzkowska?

It would be nice if people actually gathered some information about Franziska Schanzkowska early life before she began this identity crisis as 'Anna Anderson' and going around about being the Grand Duchess Anastacia. I find that this article is largely revolved around her fake claims and nothing about her life. Besides, the name of this article is her name is it not? Well its just a suggestion. I think that it would make this article look even better since its about a person. Blueknightex (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueknightex: It's necessary to jump in and agree with ChatNoir24. You won't find a whole lot about Franziska that anyone would be willing to write about ... correct, Kiernan? ChatNoir24 has interesting and well-referenced quotes her and there regarding Franziska's whereabouts, etc., but they wouldn't be allowed in either. Don't mess with that box, Pandora!!75.21.150.44 (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

King and Wilson's new book has an interesting chapter on Franziska Schanzkowska's early life. It would be worth adding more from that source. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the system we used last time to construct the current version of the article worked very well, and I would like us to continue to use it. i.e. We should place the new material on the talk page essentially one chunk at a time before we add it to the article.

What is the first thing you would like to add/change? DrKiernan (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Until now, very little has been available in books regarding the early life of Franzisca Schanzkowska, but that should be rectified with the publishing of King and Wilson's new book:"The Resurrection of the Romanovs" where they allegedly are able to prove that Anna Anderson really was the German factory worker Franzisca Schanzkowska. It will be a most interesting read.ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To be very honest, Kiernan, is there anything you don't approve that might add to the article, that will actually be included ultimately? This has been yours with little or no dissent allowed almost from the beginning. However, I will agree that we DO NOT have enough information from any agreeable source on Franziska's early life. It would be hooted, booed and shouted down no matter what was presented here. I say leave well enough alone - Kiernan taught me that lesson!75.21.157.38 (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it might prove very difficult to add material from King and Wilson. I've added references to King and Wilson, but not any new material. There is one change I would like to make in the article as a result of reading the book though. This is the sentence "Years later, Felix's daughter said in interviews for which she was paid that her father knew the woman was his sister, but he had chosen to leave her to her new life, which was far more comfortable than any alternative." King and Wilson show on page 314 (citing original letters and legal testimony) that Felix's sister Gertrude Ellerik, his niece (presumably Margarete Ellerik), his daughter Waltraut von Czenstkowski, and his wife Emma all said Felix knew she was his sister but kept quiet about it. Consequently, I'd like to remove "Felix's daughter said in interviews for which she was paid that" and replace it with something like "Felix's family said that". DrKiernan (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

German courts

"After a lawsuit lasting many years, the German courts ruled that Anderson had failed to prove she was Anastasia, but through media coverage, her claim gained notoriety." - This is a very good statement, but isn't there some additional statement by the court about whether she was Franziska? I think something well documented should be added regarding that.[Special:Contributions/75.21.150.44|75.21.150.44]] (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The case ended "non liquet", unsatisfactory for both parties. While Anna Anderson could not prove that she was Anastasia, there was also not enough evidence to show that she was Franzisca Schanzkowska. ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is of any worth, I will second Chat's inferred notion of including some statement that says Anna was not proved to be Franziska while she was also not proved to be HIH Grand Duchess Anastasiya. Beyond that I say we leave it as-is75.21.157.38 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We could change "Anderson had failed to prove she was Anastasia" in the lead to "Anderson's identity was unproven". DrKiernan (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

King and Wilson

Would someone kindly put a link to Amazon or something and place the entire title of this new book? I'd sure like to buy it and give it a good read. I'll bet it's more urban myth and no more.75.21.157.38 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added references to King and Wilson, where they corroborate the existing text, and added it to the bibliography. DrKiernan (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A general critique, at which I excel!

Couple of things:

1. I want to apologize for the weird doings of someone who had an IP address that appeared to be one of mine. Though I come to the talk page, the last activity I did was to try to include references to the film "Fashions of 1937" - or whatever it was, I forget that title. I did not know the Internet Movie Database was off-limits for sources.

(That, by the way, is frankly stupid and draconian, since IMDB only confirms films, casts, and their years.)

2. King & Wilson, though I haven't read the book, has been explained to me so I won't be making any more rude bets. King & Wilson explains how Franziska did what she did and what machinery made that possible. It is, as I understand, not another book arguing Anna's identity because that's been proved in an air-tight case.

My only real beef here is the unfair method in which this article has been built over time; to prove it is really I, Kiernan, do you recall that summer you, I and Vyvvyan Basterd built this article from scratch?

Now look at it! Sections explaining the plot of "Anastasia" are longer than the article's sections! The reference list is ridiculous! Roland Doe has a comparatively short list if you compare them!

Lord, what a mess. This is not a brief with citations for a doctoral thesis, people! The woman is proved to be a fraud, why not keep the article more oriented that way?75.21.119.216 (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anna Anderson Manahan?

Sorry: Franziska never used this pseudonym nor was it ever used in connection with her. The others are all correct (you forgot the original spelling of Schanzkowska according to King & Wilson, 2011). I can see why "Anna Anderson Manahan" could find its way into the aliases, but the aliases must be known, used aliases and "Anna Anderson Manahan" is not one of them. Her legal name was "Anastasia Manahan" according to the marriage certificate (vid. King & Wilson) - and I think she had listed her middle name as "Nicolaevna". Her occupation is listed as "royalty". All silly, but legally true in the marriage certificate information. Lots of people commonly call her "Anna Anderson Manahan", yes ... so what?76.195.85.160 (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Kurth's book is mis-titled

If I'm missing a detail, please excuse me. Why do you deliberately mis-title Peter Kurth's biography of Anna? The correct title is Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson. If he re-titled the book, which I doubt, you should still reference the original 1983 book.75.21.106.208 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is correctly titled [12]. The US and UK versions have different titles (the copy you're thinking of is ISBN 0316507164). DrKiernan (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to see the confusion: Kurth has somehow released the book under a new title because he has told me The Riddle of Anna Anderson is his only full book on the subject. It isn't the first time it's been re-titled. I mention it only because we all know Kurth's book as The Riddle of Anna Anderson, though he did title one Did Anastasia Survive?75.21.149.206 (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

New information about soldier by surname Tchaikovsky, and a searches of Anastasia by Cheka on the border with Romania in 1918

Today I posted the following text with references to sources:

- However, as established in 2008 in Yekaterinburg by the researcher V. Momot (V. Momot. "The Night Without Dawn»), the protection of Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg since May 18, 1918. also included on two soldiers from several companies of 1-st Ural Infantry Regiment (regiment commander - ex. Col. Ivan Vranitsky) - and among them was a soldier of the 1-st company Tchaikovsky or Gaykovsky (as in the regimental documents of the Russian State Military Archives (RSMA) found both versions surname)[Russian State Military Archive: RSMA F.3576. Op.1.D.46. L. 60ob. , RSMA F.3576. Op.1.D.44. L. 20ob.]. It is also known that in 1942 in the occupied territory in Kamenetz-Podolsk region (on the border with Romania), during a search in one of the houses, Baron von Schenk found a leaflet of the Extraordinary Commission (Cheka), 1918, which reported a search for runaway of the emperor's daughter Anastasia (V. Momot. "The Mystery of Princess Anastasia")(Mark Kasvinov. Twenty-three steps down. - Moscow, Publishing House "Thought", 1987 - in Russian).

Dear DrKiernan, please tell me the reasons why you have deleted this text?

Борис Романов (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Борис Романов (Boris Romanov)

It's barely comprehensible, and appears to be from a self-published source. DrKiernan (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear DrKiernan, thank you for the quick reply. I cut my text and I give now two references only to reliable sources.

- However, as established in 2008 in Russian State Military Archive, the protection of Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg since May 18, 1918. also included on two soldiers from several companies of 1-st Ural Infantry Regiment (regiment commander - ex. Col. Ivan Vranitsky) - and among them was a soldier of the 1-st company Tchaikovsky or Gaykovsky (as in the regimental documents of the Russian State Military Archives (RSMA) found both versions surname)[Russian State Military Archive: RSMA F.3576. Op.1.D.46. L. 60ob. , RSMA F.3576. Op.1.D.44. L. 20ob.]. It is also known that in 1942 in the occupied territory in Kamenetz-Podolsk region (on the border with Romania), during a search in one of the houses, Baron von Schenk found a leaflet of the Extraordinary Commission (Cheka), 1918, which reported a search for runaway of the emperor's daughter Anastasia [Mark Kasvinov. Twenty-three steps down. - Moscow, Publishing House "Thought", 1987 - in Russian].

Mark Kasvinov was well-known (in USSR) journalist and historian (he was a graduate of History Faculty of the University). He worked in the captured German archives in Vienna in 1945-1947 - there he found the documents of Baron von Schenk about a leaflet of CheKa of 1918 in Kamenetz-Podolsk. Total circulation of his books in the Soviet Union - about 1 million copies.

Do you think it possible to post my text now?Борис Романов (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)(Boris Romanov)

I still think it's problematic. Largely because we know that Anastasia was killed at Ekaterinburg, and the story of her escape with Tchaikovsky was made up. DrKiernan (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear DrKiernan, the knowledge (facts, evidences and opinions from reputable sources) that Anastasia was killed - all this is not a ban on publication of other facts and opinions from other authoritative sources in this article. For example, now the article has many references to well-known P.Kurth's book and quotes from it (and the references and citations of other authors with different opinions). Encyclopedic nature of WikipediA suggests the publication of different interesting data (from reputable sources) that relate to the topic.

Offered (by me) the data from authoritative sources do not violate the rules of WikipediA (as I understand it).

Of course, some readers may consider the references and quotations, for example, from P.Kurth's book in this Wikipedia article as evidence that Anastasia was not killed. But it is the problem of these readers themselves, - but it is not a problem of Wikipedia (and it should not be a problem of editors and administration of Wikipedia). All this fully applies to the proposed (by me) the addition with the references to authoritative sources.

I ask you to consider my addition from this point of view. Борис Романов (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC) (Boris Romanov)

I still don't think these two points are relevant. If the name of the Ipatiev guard was known at the time of Anderson's claim, then it could have been used to back up her story. However, it was only discovered after Anderson's claim was disproven, so it is only a coincidence discovered after the fact. It has no direct connection to her life. Similarly, the supposed Cheka pamphlet is not about Anderson, at best it is about Anastasia. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The article contains lots of facts, information and opinions that have emerged and were published after the time of Anderson's claim (and after her death).

2. The name "Anastasia" is mentioned in the article more than 50 times, including the full title of "Grand Princess Anastasia" - more than 10 times. In addition, the version of surviving of Anastasia mentioned three times.

Thus, your last explanations are not entirely clear. Sincerely. Boris RomanovБорис Романов (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

The article excludes lots of facts, information and opinions. Encyclopedia articles are summaries; details are excluded, especially when trivial and coincidental. I've looked in four Anderson biographies (Klier, King and Wilson, Lovell, and Massie) none mention any of this. In fact, they explicit state that there is no corroborating documentation for the escape story. To quote directly: "no one by this name had served in the guard at the Ipatiev House" (King and Wilson, p. 105); "A subsequent check of the names of the guards at the Ipatiev House revealed no Alexander Tschaikovsky, nor, indeed, was there a family named Tschaikovsky living in or near Ekaterinburg in 1918." (Massie, p. 164). As no other source mentions it, the material you want to add is insufficiently relevant. As most other sources dispute it, the material also lends undue weight to a fringe view. DrKiernan (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The authors Anderson biographies (Klier, King and Wilson, Lovell, and Massie) did not study the documents of the Russian State Military Archives (RSMA), and these books were published before the time when the documents about the guard by the name of Tchaikovsky were found in RSMA. Klier, King and Wilson, Lovell, and Massie - none of them knew about it. Perhaps, they have studied documents of the Russian State Military Historical Archive (RSMHA), but that's another archive. Thus, the publication of new information about the guard Tchaikovsky can not be regarded as a dispute with these authors. It's just new information found in the Russian State Military Archive.

In addition, the rules Wikipedia do not prohibit the publication of information that contradict each other. Moreover, the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia suggests the publication of various information, including contradicting each other. Sincerely. Boris RomanovБорис Романов (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

King and Wilson was published in the last 6 months. You said the documents were discovered 3 years ago. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to FOTR (they wrote about absent of Tschaikovsky in Ipatiev house's guard in FOTR) . Yes, their book ROTR was published recently, but we do not know, whether G.King and P.Wilson studied the documents of the Russian State Military Archives. And, if they did, whether they studied the documents of of 1-st Ural Infantry Regiment (after May 17, 1918). As far as I understand - no. Anyhow, we have not dispute with G.King and P.Wilson on this matter (about Tschaikovsky in Ipatiev house). It's just new information found in the Russian State Military Archive. Борис Романов (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Борис Романов

Dear DrKiernan, do I understand correctly that you now have no objection to the publication of my additions to the article? If you have a new objection, I ask you to articulate them here.Борис Романов (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

All my objections remain. DrKiernan (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Every your objection has been logically refuted. You have put forward a new objection every time after it , and I again refuted it logically. Now you say: "All my objections remain"... I do not understand your logic. Alas. - You never challenged any of my objections. Maybe you'll do it now? - Please, put forward your arguments (and not new objections) against my arguments.Борис Романов (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

I have above. DrKiernan (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... Now I understand what it means "I have above." In such cases in Russia, we say: "I am boss, you is fool" - in this case the other way around:) In any case, I specify: it is not an insult - it is a joke :)Борис Романов (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Boris Romanov

Yes, we do know whether King and Wilson studied the documents of the Russian State Military Archives. If you had read their book, you would also have found a detailed list of books, articles and other sources that they used for their book. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All of this does have an Alice in Wonderland quality about it. The Grand Duchess Anastasia died, along with the rest of her family in 1918, so why on Earth would anyone want to add a highly dubious story about a guard who supposedly rescued her when we all know she was already dead. Such an entry would make Wikipedia risible and an object of derision. The people who peddle Franziska Schanzowska's story are the same kind of people as those who inhabit the Flat Earth Society. --Tovojolo (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's encyclopedia principle involves the publication of all known facts that are relevant to the topic. The interpretation of the facts - this is a problem of Wikipedia readers, and it should not be an issue of Wikipedia and its editors. If you think that the publication of the discussing facts "would make Wikipedia risible and an object of derision", this is your problem.Борис Романов (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Facts? Gordon Bennett! The only fact is she was dead! You're trying to chase shadows concerning a Polish woman who self-deluded herself into thinking she was a member of the Imperial Family. Even today, the lunatic asylums are full of people who believe they are George Washington or Queen Elizabeth II. Fact No. 1 - Grand Duchess Anastasia died in 1918, Fact No. 2 - Franziska Schanzkowska was an impostor.

--Tovojolo (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

She died in 1918, actually, but I agree with the rest of the point. There's no need to include any of Boris Romanov's "facts" in the article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Corrected to 1918 :) --Tovojolo (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We read in the article:

“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).[136] The book included the "fantastic tale"[137] that Anastasia 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. Even Anderson's supporters admitted that the details of the supposed escape "might seem bold inventions even for a dramatist",[138] while her detractors considered "this barely credible story as a piece of far-fetched romance".[138] ”

My addition proves that A. Tschaikovsky was one of the soldiers of the protection of Ipatiev Hause, and that a leaflet of the Extraordinary Commission (Cheka), 1918, which reported a search for runaway of the emperor's daughter Anastasia, that this leaflet was found in 1942 in the occupied territory in Kamenetz-Podolsk region (on the border with Romania).

Why the WP readers should not know these facts? Борис Романов (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Because they are trivial, poorly sourced and misleading. DrKiernan (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1. “trivial”? – It is obvious that these facts are not trivial.

2. «poorly sourced»? – Mark Kasvinov was well-known (in USSR) journalist and historian (he was a graduate of History Faculty of the University). He worked in the captured German archives in Vienna in 1945-1947 - there he found the documents of Baron von Schenk about a leaflet of CheKa of 1918 in Kamenetz-Podolsk. Total circulation of his books in the Soviet Union - about 1 million copies.

3. «misleading»? - this is your personal opinion, and this is your problem, DrKiernan. Please, give me link on WP rules «misleading». Борис Романов (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

As I understand it, Kasvinov isn't the source nor did he find the leaflet: it was von Schenk who claimed to find the leaflet and Kasvinov is citing Schenk's testimony during the Hamburg trial. Kasvinov has not seen the original leaflet in the archive; he has seen Schenk's testimony, and is quoting that. We cannot put this material in the article when it misrepresents the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1.Your assertion that "misrepresents the sources" is an unproven accusation.

2. Your unproven accusation has not references to WP's rules.

3. Kasvinov's book (as a whole) is biased against Nicholas II and Anna Anderson - and in this case it is a merit (positive quality) for discussing question.Борис Романов (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

I'm waiting for a reply of DrKiernan for 20 days. Is there nothing you can argue to me?Борис Романов (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Boris Romanov

Give it a rest Boris. The consensus is clearly against inclusion for the reasons given above. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)