Talk:Anna Anderson

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 DrKiernan 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. DrKiernan (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] DrKiernan (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 Kiernan 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? DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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 DrKiernan 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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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:DrKiernan. 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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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 DrKiernan 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. Kiernan 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. DrKiernan 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)

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? DrKiernan (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 DrKiernan'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 DrKiernan 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. DrKiernan (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 DrKiernan 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. Kiernan, 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. DrKiernan (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 DrKiernan. Finneganw 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed article put forward by DrKiernan

I think you have done well DrKiernan. 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. DrKiernan (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.[6] DrKiernan (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)

DrKiernan 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"? DrKiernan (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have already mentioned DrKiernan 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. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Dr Kiernan 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..." DrKiernan (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 DrKiernan 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 DrKiernan 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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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 DrKiernan. 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. DrKiernan (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 [7]. Removal doesn't seem to effect the flow of the text at all. DrKiernan (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 [8]. That way, the article does point out a history of mental illness, and stays in mental hospitals, but without saying "insane". DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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)

DrKiernan 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. DrKiernan 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? DrKiernan (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 DrKiernan 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 DrKiernan, in which I describe Jackson's life up to 2009 and then claim to have escaped Neverland in an ambulance, is that "DrKiernan'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." DrKeirnan (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once again DrKiernan. 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 DrKeirnan 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 DrKeirnan made. The Jackson article is analogous to the article on Anastasia. This article is analogous to a hypothetical article on DrKeirnan. If DrKeirnan 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, DrKeirnan 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". DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. Kiernan. 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)

Time to move on

It's time to move on beyond the discredited tired abusive old rants of the rabid AA supporters to further the article. Considerable positive progress has been made here thanks to DrKiernan and those who wish to see the article rebuilt to reflect reality. Please leave out the discredited nonsensical fantasy and only include fully verified fact. Finneganw 08:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment section (3)

I've adopted the wording for the biographies.[9]

On the issue of adding quotes of "family" opinion, we won't get agreement on including just one side, so there are only two ways to proceed:

1. No quotes
2. Balancing quotes, say one from Andrew and one from Michael, both very brief

The "Olga" issue is easily addressed by simply not including an Olga quote.

I am not clear whether the quotes currently in the article are being objected too or not.

On the issue of von Nidda's supposed validating evidence for the escape story, the simplest solution is to remove "discredited" from the phrase "Anderson's discredited escape story". DrKiernan (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions DrKiernan- Response below:

As for the idea of no quotes I think that is going into denial that any evidence exists. There really is no balance as the Romanov family were not balanced on Anderson. With the exception of two very insignificant Romanovs who really did not know the real Anastasia at all well, the rest solidly rejected Anderson. Grand Duke Andrew also distanced himself quite strongly away from the whole matter when Botkin slandered the late Tsar's only surviving sisters. He wanted no part in that at all. A quote is necessary from after the DNA period as it clearly sets out Romanov opinion that agrees with the solid view of the family prior to DNA testing results. As for not addressing Olga that is yet more denial of hard fact. This is a senior Romanov who was quite categorically clear that Anderson was NEVER her niece. I think what is clear is that rabid Anderson supporters can never accept that Anderson was not Anastasia. They cannot be reasoned with as they cannot accept hard fact. They have never wanted consensus here. They are not interested in it at all. That though is not wikipedia's problem, it is theirs alone. They live in a world of fantasy not accepted by serious historians, eminent scientists and leading world media organsiations. Their nonsensical views are not to be taken at all seriously. They are completely obsessed and unobjective. Their Anderson has been totally discredited. I believe there is a need to stand firm. There is no other opinion as it has been totally discredited. It is fact that Anderson was NEVER Anastasia. There is no need whatsoever to pander to the ridiculous fantasies of those who cannot accept proven historical fact. It is not a difficult matter to resolve. Anderson was never Anastasia just like German was totally defeated at the end of world war two. It is fact and it is not denied except by those who are sadly completely out of touch with reality. Finneganw 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Finneganw, the entire second half of the message above is a rant itself. Just leave it out. I'm tired of reading the same thing five thousand times. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why we'd have to remove discredited from the cart story. It IS discredited. I don't care who claimed to have helped her along the way, the trip was fiction as proven by DNA results and the fact that her alleged rescuer did not exist. I don't even know why so much attention is given to Nidda's book, it is actually the most discredited of all.

Finneganw is quite correct in saying that there were only two insignficant Romanovs who barely knew the real Anastasia who took her side, and both stopped after the 1928 letter trashing the Tsar's sisters, so there is no way Andrew should be given equal time with those who fought her for years in court. Prince Michael, who gave the quote, was just summing up the family's history of disbelief in AA after the DNA tests came out. His comments are from the 90's while the ones from supporters are from the 20's. I also have a source letter from Olga stating that Andrew must have 'vile motives to side against us' and that 'it was all about blackmail and money.' If you want to leave out all Olga quotes that may be the only solution to stop the bickering, but I still do not see any valid reason for 'balance' with supporters since they have been proven wrong. As Trusilver told us, wiki does not regard all opinions as equal and there is no obligation to appease a wrong side in a clearly lopsided argument. As for the current proposed article, I have seen no complaints about it, because the more recent joiners and returners to the page have not even considered it, they spend all their time fighting for the cause of AA's supporters though this topic has not even been touched on in our article and consensus. I have seen no one complain about what is already there, only what may be there later. This is why we have gotten off track.Aggiebean (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Considerable progress has been made in trying to sort out the article. A great many are tired of the nonsense that some have tried to foist on this article over a great many years. Let's get on with the article and try to make it factually accurate. Finneganw 15:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you really want to make the article factually accurate, why are you so afraid to include Olga's own writings to AA? They clearly tell of recognition and love for a person that she believed to be her niece. This does not MAKE AA a Grand Duchess, it only shows that Olga was very much in doubt. Her doubts continued after her denouncing AA as a fraud, please read Grand Duke Andrew's letters. As for Andrew, he distanced himself from Gleb Botkin's methods, but he was still conducting his investigation until he was ordered to cease all activity by his brother Cyril. Upon his death, his dossier was confiscated by the family and is, like the Zahle papers, kept under lock and key. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yawn! Finneganw 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We've been through this Olga stuff a million times. The facts are the woman spent decades fighting AA in court. She was not a supporter and she stood to gain nothing financially. She fought only for the memory of her murdered niece. As for Andrew's papers being locked, maybe his family was humiliated he had taken part, perhaps intentionally, in a fraudlent claim. It should be duly noted that no member of the Romanov family ever testified in her favor or took the stand in her behalf during the entire four decades of the trial. Support by members of the family is overstated and exaggerated by AA supporters, and we don't need such misleading info in the aticle. Here is an interesting family quote that can be useful, it's from the Copenhagen statement of 1928 and is conveniently left out of all writings by AA supporters who would rather villanize the family. (Klier and Mingay p.111)

"Our sense of duty compels us to state that the story is only a fairy tale. The memory of our dear departed would be tarnished if we allowed this fantastic story to spread and gain any credence."Aggiebean (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Get your facts straight here. Olga never fought anybody in court, the opposition was financed from Hesse. Olga was only called in to give testimony when living in Toronto. Prince Sigismund, Prince Ernst Frederick of Saxe-Altenburg, Grand Duke Andrew and Marianne von Hesse Philipsthal were all on AA's side. As for the Copenhagen Statement, (Made in Hesse), none of the people who signed it had ever laid eyes on Anderson except for Olga. From Botkin's book:

"No sooner did the Empress Dowager breathe her last than they issued a statement to the press, declaring Anastasia an impostor. That action on their part was the more revolting because it came without any provocation, not a word on Anastasia's case having appeared in print for two months. Their statement must have been - and later I was informed that it actually was - prepared long in advance and held only for the day of the Empress's death, the latter having forbidden any such public attack on Anastasia. Incidentally, ouside of Xenia's immediate family, only two of her first cousins had agreed to sign that statement. Even Grand Duke Cyril had refused to sign it." As for the money, Grand Duke Alexander sent a cable to The New York Times, saying that the whole case of Mrs. Tschaikovsky was organised by Gleb Botkin in an effort to gain control of the fortune which his wife, Grand Duchess Xenia, was trying to inherit in England! Talk about letting the cat out of the bag. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Chat, I do have my facts straight. Combatting with Botkin's book is not going to convince me since you know I believe he was a fraud too. Of course he's villfying the family, that was the goal, and they were right to be suspicious of him. Yes, Xenia didn't want an impostor to get family money. This is the key here, you are under the delusion they were denying "Anastasia" her inheritance, but actually they were defending their own money from a lying claimant. There was no large fortune as AA and her supporters claimed. None of those people you list were Romanovs other than Andrew, and as Finneganw and I have already stated, he withdrew all support after the 1928 letter. No Romanov ever testified in AA's behalf during the entire trial. More message board discussion to drag the page down. We are not making any progress this way.Aggiebean (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan - that material looks good. In terms of Olga, given the central place her meeting with Anderson and subsequent actions plays in the Anderson story, I think that ideally we should present a neutral account of Olga's history with Anderson, based on reliable secondary sources - preferably recent works that accept Anderson as an impostor. I think, however, that this belongs in the not-yet-written biography section of the article, not in the assessment section. The assessment section should perhaps note that she was largely rejected by the surviving members of the Romanov family and by the rest of Europe's royal families, but that a few did believe in her and even champion her (Grand Duke Andrew and Princess Xenia could perhaps specifically be mentioned). john k (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No Andrew and Leeds should not be mentioned as 'championing her cause' since both were only briefly involved and dropped out after the 1928 letter which was before the court case even started. All Leeds ever did was give her a place to stay for a few months when she first came to the US. Neither was close to the real Anastasia as Olga was. It is very misleading to state or even imply that some of the family supporter her in her case. Not true at all.Aggiebean (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, get your facts straight. Xenia Leeds did not drop out, she testified for AA in court and never changed her opinion as to whom she thought AA was. Andrew did not "drop out" after Botkin's rebuttal to the Copenhagen statement, he continued his investigation until his brother Cyril ordered him to stop. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Klier, she only prepared one written statement. Andrew was not actively involved after the Gleb letter. Both of these people are very small players who did not know Anastasia very well and are not on the same level with Olga. It is misleading to mention these two bit players as 'family acceptance' as if they were. They were not 'champions of her cause' the way Botkin and Rathlef were. Once again, we hiss over these petty details and get nowhere. Chat, your insistence on sticking only to AA supporters' version will only hold us back. We need to move forward.Aggiebean (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not on the same level with Olga? And how do you know how well Andrew knew the girls? The truth is, you don't. And he was involved after Gleb's letter, but did not support Gleb's methods. He was ordered off the investigation by his brother Cyril. Do your homework, all your nonsense is what is holding everything up. Save your personal comments for your own website. And "We" do not hiss over petty details, YOU do. ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Chat you've been telling me to 'do my homework' for years. I even wrote a long and detailed and documented website but that wasn't good enough for you because you only want to believe the AA side.

So far, I have not seen that you have included Olga's letters to AA on your site. Afraid of something, are we? Also, have you included Mr. Oxlee's answer regarding FS? I bet you haven't.ChatNoir24 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done more than my share of 'homework' and the more I find out, the faker AA appears. Yes you do hiss over petty details, you are the one who keeps dredging them up from the dust. The reason there is no record of how well Andrew knew Anastasia is because there is no evidence of it because they were never together. There are many stories of her and Olga being together, visiting, going for ice cream, going to Olga's house, etc. Andrew was a member of the hated Vladimirovichi line. His mother and brothers were persona non grata to Nicholas and Alexandra. Oh sure he had a token 'aide de camp' title but he was not one of the main four, I saw a list of them and he wasn't on it. Even if he did come on business it was not a time to socialize with the little girls. Also consider he was living with Nicholas's ex mistress, that was not a person you could really bring around the kids. His contact was so small, I would bet he couldn't even tell one girl from the other, especially not years later.Aggiebean (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yawn and double yawn. How very tedious and grossly inaccurate Chat. Finneganw 12:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

They do a lot of yawning down under, don't they. And you have forgotten the Sunday lunches with Andrew and the Imperial Family where Andrew had just as much time to get to know the girls as Olga had on their visits to St. Petersburg and her house there. And he, like Olga, recognized AA as Anastasia, like it or not. ChatNoir24 (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

More abusive rubbish. Obviously the editor concerned has basically no understanding of basic Romanov family history whatsoever. Finneganw 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposed article as it stands now

Does anyone have any issues with the proposed article as it stands now or can we move on? I just read the whole thing and I think its' fine, but I do think we should be more openly clear about the recent 2009 results by mentioning them specifically at the end of the DNA section. I know technically the link is in the lead but left vague and only as a reference people may not click on. I think it's important to add that, in March 2009 the final results were published by Dr. Michael Coble proving there were four separate DNA profiles for four different girls, and with the discovery of the fourth daughter and Alexei, the entire family is officially accounted for. We need to spell this out, because not everyone will get it if we don't.Aggiebean (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Aggiebean in correct in her request. Dr. Michael Coble's work needs to be mentioned. There should be no doubt whatsoever if the article is to be credible. Finneganw 12:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned twice already. Mentioning it a third time is needless repetition. If you're unhappy with the way it is currently phrased then propose a way of re-phrasing the current paragraph, rather than the addition of a third one. DrKiernan (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's never mentioned in so many words, only in a reference link most people will never click on. We need to state it outright at the end of the DNA section, because after all it is the final conclusion, the end of the story, and the DNA section is incomplete without it. If you don't want it in there too many times take out one of the others, but it needs to wrap up the DNA section.Aggiebean (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not needless repitition at all if it the respected opinion of another scientist. This article needs respected information rather than pushing unverifiable discredited information. Finneganw 11:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography

I agree it's time to move on. So, I've put two opening paragraphs of a biography section on Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle. These paragraphs cover the time she was in Dalldorf asylum only. I think very strongly that discussion should be restricted to this time period only for the time being. We will move onto later periods piece by piece. DrKiernan (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, two things- first I don't like the line 'simply and accurately' stated that she was not Tatiana. The wording could leave the impression she was Anastasia and knew it. Also, I don't know where "I, Anastasia" got that Buxhoeveden quote, but I've never seen that anywhere else. Here is her complete official statement, published in Gilliard's book, which may be maligned but is much better than "I, Anastasia." I know we can't use the entire thing, but better lines could be taken from here. I also think the very last line about 'now she supposes she is Anastasia' is excellent.

She was in bed close to the wall, she was turned facing against the window, in full sunlight. When she heard us enter the room, she hid herself under the cover to hide herself from our stares, and we were not able to get her to show us her face....The unknown one spoke German with Miss Peuthert. Although she was permitted to get up, she prefered to stay in bed as long as possible. This is how I found her. After asking my companions to move away from the bed a little, I tried to attract the young woman's attention as I caressed her hair and speaking to her in English while using the types of phrases I would have used while speaking with the Grand Duchesses, but I did not refer to her by any name other than 'Darling'. She did not reply and I saw that she did not understand a word of what I had said, for when she raised the cover after a certain period of time, and I saw her face, there was nothing in her eyes which showed she had recognized me. The eyes and forehead showed some resemblance to the Grand Duchess Tatiana Nicolaievna, resemblance that disappeared, nevertheless, as soon as her face was not covered. I had to remove the cover by force, and I saw that neither the nose, the mouth, nor the chin were formed like that of the Grand Duchess. The hair was lighter in color, some of her teeth were missing-and the remaining ones were not like those of the Grand Duchess...Her hands were also completely different, the fingers were longer and the nails narrower. I wanted to measure her height, but she refused, and I found it impossible to get an exact measurement without force. We judged roughly that in any case, she was smaller than me, while the Grand Duchess Tatiana was more than ten centimeters taller than me. I have been able to verify this, thanks to the patient's official measurement at the time of her arrival at the hospital and that corresponded exactly with the one which was taken in my presence. I tried to awaken the memory of the young woman by all the possible means; I showed to her an 'icon', with the date of the Romanov jubilee, that the emperor had given to some persons of the suite, after that a ring that had belonged to the empress; the latter had been given given to her in the presence of the Grand Duchess Tatiana. But none of these things seemed not to evoke in her the slightest recognition. She remained completely indifferent, she whispered some incomprehensible words into Ms. Peuthert's ear. Although I noted a certain similarity in the upper part of the face with the unknown -currently Mrs. Tschaikovski- with the Grand Duchess Tatiana, I am sure that she is not her. I later learned that the she supposes that she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia, but she does not physically resemble her in the least. She has none of the special characteristics that would allow any one who knew the Grand Duchess Anastasia well to identify her.Aggiebean (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We REALLY do need to avoid "I, Anastasia" as a source, as it is complete fiction, much less credible than even Rathlef whom I disregard as bunk. The only parts that aren't fiction are the parts where things were plagierized from other books and passed off as 'memories', such as the passage from "Last Days of the Romanovs" I posted earlier. If you're at a loss for good sources, go to my website, it's a goldmine. I know you won't use my site as a source, but you can find the stuff you want, go to the footnotes and use the original source.Aggiebean (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On your first point, if we remove that sentence, it appears that she was actually pretending to be Tatiana, but the sources don't seem to support that contention. They say that it was other people who claimed that rather than her. On the second point, I've used a different Buxhoeveden quote. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if Aggiebean actually READ the books she considers bunk and discredited? Why she is even in this discussion, is a mystery to me.

As for La Buxhöveden, she obviously overlooked the height, the hair, the eyes, the scars and the Hallux Valgus on both feet. But her statement is what it is, and I think it should be included. As for the Tatiana confusion, we have the statement from Nurse Malinovsky about AA telling who she was supposed to be already in 1921, months before Clara Marie Peuthert made her own assessment of the patient's identity. This should also be included. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Added. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nurse quote? Emphatic NO. Finneganw and I will never consent to that. That very comment is exactly what caused the last big edit war that got the page shut down and turned over to admin. The statement CANNOT be true if you look at all the other evidence, it was clearly only this one woman and Rathlef trying their best to predate the "Tatiana" story so it wouldn't look like it was made up by a mental patient, which it was. The nurse couldn't even get her date straight and told the paper 1922, then accused them of making the mistake. No, this story reeks of just the kind of fiction that we have fought for years to keep out of this article. What we have been trying to get across all this time is, just because something is quoted in a book and you can put a page number to it, does not necessarily validate it. A lot of people say a lot of things, even in court, and in every case half of them turn out to be lying or wrong. We need to use common sense and logical deduction and carefully choose what is used and what isn't. This nurse fairy tale is my NUMBER ONE thing to exclude for this reason. It's no more real than the quotes from the men claiming to have helped her on her journey to Romania, or Heinrich Kliebetzl who claimed to have seen Anastasia alive the day after the murders. This was all testimony too, but now reduced to fiction. If you'll recall, this is the reason you agreed to leave the lead as saying 'first received public attention in 1922' leaving it ambiguous as to if it happened or not. We should go back to that, if you must appease Chat, though I would prefer to say the claim began in early 1922. The nurse story is completely out of line and makes no sense with the rest of the chronological events, and as Judge Judy would say, if it doesn't make sense, it is not true. I could go into a great deal more detail if necessary.

As for the alleged quote, it was "I never said I was Tatiana" but the way you word it still leaves the impression she was saying she was Anastasia instead, and she never did. What happened was, Baron von Kleist gave her a list of all the Grand Duchesses names and told her to mark out all but the one that wasn't her, and she left the name Anastasia- the only one who shared her height of 5'2". So you see she never said she was Anastasia either, it was all other people, and we need to make this perfectly clear. Her claim was invented by the mental patient Clara P. She made no mention of being a Grand Duchess or showing any interest in them until then.

The thing about Buxhoeveden is, the hallux vagus and height wouldn't have mattered to her, because she was so close to the family she saw the girls on a daily basis, even vacationed with them, and would have known on sight from facial features alone if it was her or not just as you would know your own best friend or family member. When she said 'special characteristics' she likely meant facial features, which were very different, voice, personality, mannerisms, etc. She even mentioned that the hands and fingers were wrong this is just how well she knew the girls, and why she was an excellent witness.Aggiebean (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Did not someone just say that we would not move forward because of the fussing over details? It seems very clear to me who makes the fuss when the details do not fit her PoV.

ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We all know if there is to be a 'bio' section (which I am personally against due to the fact she lived a faked life, and because of all the trouble it will cause due to past history) there are going to be a lot of bones of contention over the details here. How sly (and rotten) of you to sneak in your nurse garbage on an unsuspecting person who didn't know the sordid history. You know it was the cause of many violent edit wars, and you kept inserting it as POV vandalism after it had been repeatedly removed, and you even got in trouble for it. You also knew it would push my button. What a dirty trick, but your past history on this speaks for itself. At the time, the admins who saw it agreed with us the nurse story was invalid and you should not keep sneaking it back in. Aggiebean (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, how rotten of me to stick to the facts. And that Thea Malinovsky testified that AA told her that she was Anastasia, is a fact. It does not in any way make AA the Grand Duchess, just shows us that she was very consistent in her claim. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What a complete and utter mess this is all becoming. It is essential that fully verifiable accurate sources are used and not discredited nonsense. The type of rubbish one editor is pushing has been completely disproven and is not accepted by any serious historian. Aggiebean is 100% correct when she states that it was this particular editor's nonsense that caused the edit war that started this entire process. The particular editor was actually warned of the consequences of perpetuating such nonsense by more than one administrator. I think wikipedia deserves better than extreme POV discredited invention.

I suggest we look at credible people who knew the real Anastasia such as Buxhoeveden, Princess Irene and so forth. They knew Anderson was a fraud. Dredging up the ridiculous unverifiable Nurse story and other such nonsense has no place here. Once again it needs to be said that is it fact that Anderson was not Anastasia. Please leave the nonsense out. The verdict is out on Anderson. What needs to be recorded here are accurate statements and her fraud to be exposed. There is no place in an accurate article for pushing rubbish. Finneganw 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you, Finneganw. It is not verifiable as the Clara P. story, which had many witnesses. If something is very questionable and can be traced only to the alleged word of mouth of ONE person, with NO witnesses, and it makes no sense otherwise, it should never be given any attention in a fact based article. We are going to be writing a much shorter article, and we must be very careful about what we put in and leave out. This is one big thing to leave out. If I only get one 'veto' this is it.Aggiebean (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I must state the current quote from Baroness Buxhoeveden is a very poor choice. I believe Aggiebean is quite correct in stating it should be replaced and I would favour what she has intelligently selected :

I later learned that the she supposes that she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia, but she does not physically resemble her in the least. She has none of the special characteristics that would allow any one who knew the Grand Duchess Anastasia well to identify her.

Quotes need to be accurate and not from discredited sources. Finneganw 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And whom, if I may ask, has discredited the word of Thea Malinovsky? And, oh yes, Dr. Chemnitz was her witness. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the 'too short' quote is a rehash of other things, we should take advantage of the more detailed quote from her official statement. I also think 'simply and accurately' needs to be deleted. If you must leave in the quote, why not just say the unknown woman said x, 'simply and accurately' still gives too much allusion to her possibly being Anastasia.Aggiebean (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The discredited Nurse 'story' has no place in this article. It is complete nonsense. Finneganw 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How exactly has it been discredited, and by whom? I seem to recall Massie reports her remarks as fact. What do Klier and Welch say, if anything? Is there any other source which can be said to discredit it? john k (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has discredited it. The Berliner Nachtausgabe did, wilfully or by mistake, record the date as fall of 1922, a time when AA was no longer at Dalldorf. Thea Malinovsky wrote to Kurt Pastenaci and complained about the mistake, and the letter was published. Frau Rathlef included it in her book as well. I cannot remember what Klier says about it, but Welch leaves is out in her attempt to sell the story that AA changed from Tatiana to Anastasia. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And so it begins! The first of many brick walls I knew we'd face if we put in all the details. This caused problems and edit wars for years, and it's happening again. I didn't have to be psychic to predict that. I was right.

Look, the nurse story is completely out of line with everything else that happened. AA came to the mental home, didn't speak to anyone or give any name until that one day when Clara p. said she looked like Tatiana. THAT is when the whole thing started. If AA had gone to some random nurse and 'confessed' the entire story of being Anastasia, jewels sewn into clothes, guards told us to dress, family was shot, who story, do you really think nothing would have happened, and that she'd have gone back to the mute patient, and that when it was mentioned she was "Tatiana" she wouldn't have said anything, and no one else would have found out? Look at the circus that started when she was "Tatiana." If AA had said all that stuff before, why was she so surprised at the "Tatiana" stuff and never denied being her until Buxhoeveden said she was too short? Also, she never knew all those details of the family being shot until years later, and she had to deal with her 'amnesia' to get them out. So are we to accept that she knew the whole story, forgot it again, and then it took her years to remember even parts of it? It makes NO sense. The obvious reality is exactly what I said, Rathlef (who was the source of it) and this ONE nurse cooked up this scheme to try to predate the "Tatiana" story with details of her being "Anastasia" to try to give more strength to her claim so it wouldn't look like it was randomly invented by a mental patient. The only other possible explaination is that this nurse got the date wrong (she seemed very unsure) and it happened after the Clara P. incident, but that would still not explain how AA knew all that stuff and then didn't, so I'm going with the 'invented' tale. Of course, AA supporters want you to accept that it did happen because that is a big score for her being "Anastasia" because there is no other way she could have known that stuff since she hadn't talked to the emigres yet. BUT that is the very reason it is proven false- because AA wasn't Anastasia, and she hadn't talked to the emigres yet, she COULD NOT have known the things she told the nurse, therefore it couldn't have happened= DISCREDITED just like the 'testimony' of those who said they saw her alive after the execution and helped her in the cart. Anyway, this is a consensus article, and we have two people who will never accept this bunk presented as fact. We are making a much shorter article and must be a lot more selective as to what we put into it. This nonsense needs to go. At the very least, for the sake of consensus, we can go back to 'the claim first received public attention in 1922' which is the truth, and those who choose to believe the fake nurse story can say, well that wasn't 'public', but NO WAY should it be in the article. Everything in the article needs to be something we KNOW is true, and this is certainly very iffy at best. I stand firm on that, and I'm not fighting about it anymore. This invented fantasy is my veto.Aggiebean (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It would seem if blatant inaccurate garbage is going to be included there will not be a credible article and consensus will never be reached. Wikipedia deserves respect not ridicule. It's time for the disproven rubbish to stop. The same one who caused the repeated edit war is determined to push ridiculous fantasy. I guess there is a convenient loss of memory of the warnings received from administrators to desist from such disruptive behaviour. Finneganw 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

AA told her story to Thea Malinovsky in the fall of 1921, and swore her to secrecy. Thea Malinovsky went to Dr. Chemnitz and told him what happened, and his answer was: What else do you expect to hear in an insane asylum? When the FS story broke, Malinovsky wrote down what happened at Dalldorf and sent her manuscript to Berliner Nachtausgabe, who printed it, but with an incorrect date. Malinovsky then voiced her complaint in a letter to Kurth Pastenaci, which he published. The letter was later included in Rathlef's book, but there was otherwise no connection between Rathlef and Malinovsky. Later, when Edward Fallows collected material for the lawsuit in Germany, both Malinowsky and Dr. Chemnitz gave him their testimony, which is kept at the Houghton Library at Harvard. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Aggiebean and Finneganw - I don't see you pointing to any sources for your claim that Malinovsky is discredited. That makes it OR. It may very well be true that the nurse, for some reason, decided to lie and claim that Anderson told her something which had never happened. But it is simply nonsense to say that Anderson could not have known anything about Anastasia before meeting emigrés, and thus that the story must be false. It seems likely that Malinovsky was lying or mistaken, given what else we know, but you simply don't have proof of anything. And, again, your whole line of reasoning here is OR. I don't think anybody here cares about what you and Finnegan think about the issue. The way DrKiernan presents the issue in his draft - noting Malinovsky's story but remaining agnostic about its truth, noting that some accounts ignore it, and giving it separately from the main narrative - seems like the way to go here, unless you can point to an actual appropriate source that disputes the story. john k (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly it would seem there is a lack of an understanding of basic fact concerning Anderson. Nothing she claimed was accurate at all. The only thing accurate was her suicide attempt and being fished out and taken to a mental hospital. The rest is complete garbage. Find a real source that attributes the Nurse story apart from those who have written discredited rubbish. Finneganw 06:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no source to dispute it and you know it, that's why you're trying to pull this. However, all it takes is a little common sense to see through it as I have done. There is also no source discrediting other obviously fake details like the guy who allegedly helped them across the river in the cart, but with the DNA we have to have enough sense to see that some things COULD NOT be true. Just because no one has written a book specifically spelling this out does not mean we have to accept the garbage. Far more is written by supporters. Most people feel they don't have to spell out in so many words what is false and what isn't, now that we know she wasn't really Anastasia, there are certain things that cannot be true. This nurse story is one of them. It has no place in a fact-based article, especially since we are limited for space this time. The bottom line is, this article is being built on consensus and you will never get consensus from me or Finneganw on that hogwash. (I have already explained why it is hogwash) I also want to make clear I am not trying to say in the article that the story is fake, I am saying because the story has to be fake, it should not be stated as fact in the article.Aggiebean (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: You have explained why YOU think it is hogwash. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I have explained why it HAS to be hogwash, due to the reality AA was not Anastasia and had not yet had any contact with the emigres. Of course you want it because it makes it look like she had to be Anastasia, and that is what you want, but we need a concise, fact based article free of allusions to a 'maybe' that is not true.Aggiebean (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What we want, is a bio of her life. And you cannot cherrypick here, that is something you can do on your own website only. As to her knowledge of things, we have testimony from several nurses at Dalldorf that she spoke Russian like a native, was very well informed about Russian affairs and especially Russian military matters. She was well informed about the German Kaiser, and once spoke of the Crown Prince in such a way that one would think she knew him personally. ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense. There was plenty of information about Anastasia which was publicly available and which could have been used as the basis for stories before she'd met any emigres. It is not as though Malinovsky was an expert on the Russian imperial family who could judge whether what she said made any sense, and obviously the details she gave came later, but there's nothing inherently impossible about Anderson claiming to be Anastasia in 1921. And, again, if there are no reliable sources which argue that the story is bullshit, then it's simply incorrect to refer to it as discredited. john k (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to 'refer' to it as discredited, I want to omit it due to it being discredited- or rather, not used due to the fact that it is nonsense. Yes,it IS impossible those things could have happened before the claim started, unless she was AN, which we know she wasn't. That's all the proof we need it's BS. It's in the same category with the other bogus stories invented to bolster her claim, such as the ones who testified they helped the cart cross the river, etc. This story has been the source of the edit wars and much vandalism by Chat, it is the main issue which got the whole article shut down, and there is no way I will ever, ever accept it being part of a factual article. We have to be very careful about what we include, especially since we are including less this time. Nothing that highly suspect should ever be presented as fact in an encyclopedia article. Aggiebean (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Chat, we don't know if any of that is even true, it all came from supporters. We need only basic, truthful and verifiable info, nothing iffy or questionable passed off as fact. All these things she allegedly did/said/'remembered' are very much in question now. We should stay away from too much detail that will only cause us to disagree. Oh, and I know I haven't got a ghost of a chance of getting a Vorres quote in here either, so it's going to go both ways. We need to stick to basics and not get off into too many details we cannot prove. The article must stick to facts only. One person saying somebody said something on page x is NOT a 'fact.' We need more proof.Aggiebean (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a quote from her opponent, Grand Duke Alexander: Grand Duchess Anastasia's spirit has returned to this world and incorporated itself into another body. She knows so much about the intimate life of the Tsar and his family that there is simply no other explanation for it.ChatNoir24 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Off with the fairies you go to fantasyland again ChatNoir. Finneganw 06:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Placement of Biography

I believe there is a major problem with the placement of the Biography section. It needs to be put after the section on DNA. It is the DNA evidence that smashed Anderson's fraud to pieces. That should be clearly highlighted way above the Biography so there is absolutely no uncertainty whatsoever about the case that Anderson was a complete fraud. The DNA information should not be hidden under a biography. Finneganw 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the purpose of this article is not to prove that Anderson was a complete fraud. It is to describe her life (which entails, of course, noting that her claim to be Anastasia was false). You seem to wish this wasn't true, but, nonetheless, it is the case. Secondly, a summary of the DNA test results is already found in the introduction. There's no reason to repeat them again before going into the biography. john k (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly you seem to not have the foggiest idea about the topic. Anderson's whole life after being pulled out of the Berlin canal was a complete fraud and has been completely proved as such. That is undeniable fact. Here is not a normal biography and that is quite clear. You seem to think proposing complete and utter garbage is acceptable. It is not. Do try and stop the nonsense. Finneganw 06:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Malinovsky claim

I don't understand the objections. Let us examine each clause of the draft in turn.

Was Thea Malinovsky a nurse at Dalldorf?

I don't see anyone denying this, and the sources refer to her as such.

Did she claim years later that Anderson told her she was Anastasia in the autumn of 1921?

Yes, in a letter to a 1927 newspaper, in a 1929 letter to Edward Fallows in the Fallows archive at the Houghton Library, Harvard University, and in testimony given at the High Court of Hamburg on 17 December 1958.

Did Anderson recall the incident?

No, according to I, Anastasia, (and according to Users Finneganw and Aggiebean, since how could she "recall" something that didn't happen?)

Do some of her biographers ignore Malinovsky's claim?

Neither Klier nor Welch mention it, they just use the Peuthert claims.

Do some of her biographers weave it into their narrative?

Yes, Massie (p. 163) says "In the autumn of 1921, turning though an illustrated magazine containing pictures of the Russian Imperial family, the patient asked another nurse whether she noticed any resemblance between herself and the tsar's youngest daughter. When the nurse agreed that there was a resemblance, the patient declared that she was Grand Duchess Anastasia." So, he states it as fact.

Are there any sources which dispute any of the above?

User:Aggiebean says not: [10]

Are the sources used reliable and verifiable?

Yes, objections like "completely disproven and is not accepted by any serious historian" simply do not make any logical sense. Robert K. Massie is a former Rhodes Scholar who studied history at Yale and Oxford before winning the Pulitzer Prize for biography. Claims that he is not a reliable source do not stand up to scrutiny.

I don't see how objections on the grounds of verifiability can be considered valid. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks more of a case that the above editor is quite correct when he states : I don't understand the objections. That statement is abundantly clear. Where is his verifiable source apart from the discredited rubbish that the conversation ever took place? It is well known outright lies occurred to back up the fraud Anderson. It's very convenient the dates mix up as well. It would appear DrK is not fully aware that cases of lying under oath occur on a regular basis in courts the world over. Perhaps he should acquaint himself with some members of the legal fraternity who would put him straight on that one as well as legal academics. It's not surprising at all that Klier and Welch never mention it. Where does Massie get his source one wonders? Sounds like dredging up the work of others. The only one not making sense in the above is the editor. Just because somebody is a Rhodes Scholar does not make them immune from making inaccurate statements and writing works that are of questionable value. In fact I know of one Rhodes Scholar who has been openly ridiculed by fellow academics. That must be one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen someone make for a very long time. Pulitzer prizes have also been awarded to some dubious figures. I tend to think such a statement does not stand up to serious scrutiny. It would appear DrK needs to do some further research before making such wild accusations not based on credible information. There can be no real consensus while the pushing of wildly unverifibale rubbish is allowed. I would suggest it is time for some other viewpoints to assist DrK rather than relying on such very weak statements. I would refer DrK to statements made by other administrators who perhaps see this matter a touch more clearly about pushing unverifiable information at wikipedia. Finneganw 10:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)