Talk:Anna Anderson

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.[1]

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)

"According to Klier, she only prepared one written statement. Aggiebean (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)" Annie, if "she" refers to Princess Xenia then both you and Klier are wrong. She testified at the trial that she was convinced AA was Anastasia. You criticise AA supporters for getting their facts right but what are you doing? AS Chat pointed out, none of this makes AA a Grand Duchess but it is fact. And incidentally perhaps you could let us see the "list" you claim to have seen of the main four Aide de Camps? I would be interested to know your source. Perhaps you could also stop speculating as to GD Andrei's suitability to be around the children because of his mistress or his ability to tell one sister from another? it is pointless. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 23:02, 24 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)

Why on earth is it impossible? I do not think that word means what you think it means. You are making massive assumptions here. There was plenty of publicly available information about the Romanovs which Schankowska could have picked up from any number of places without help from von Kleist or Tolstoi, or whoever. Malinovsky was not an expert on the Romanovs, and so could not have known what was bullshit and what was not. She only wrote down what she supposedly remembered years later, when the details would certainly have gotten confused with things she learned later on. The idea that Fräulein Unbekannt might have claimed to be Anastasia prior to meeting Russian emigrés is perhaps unlikely, but it is not impossible. Certainly Massie had no problem including the story as true in his book, even though he obviously knew that Anderson was not Anastasia. And, of course, the current proposed text is not presenting as fact that Anderson told Malinovsky she was Anastasia in 1921. It is presenting as fact that Malinovsky later testified that this occurred and that there is no corroboration of the story from any other source (including Anderson herself!) It seems that this story does not fit with your preferred reconstruction of how Anderson's fraud was accomplished. Fine, I think it was probably bogus too. But the fact that a story does not fit with your preferred reconstruction does not mean that it is necessarily false. john k (talk) 20:04, 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)

Alexander did say that, but it is not clear to me whether it was meant to be satirical. DrKiernan (talk) 17:22, 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)

Once again, you are the one who is missing the point. There are things which Anderson verifiably did after 1920. This article should describe them. That she was not actually Anastasia is completely irrelevant to the fact that she is a notable person who did things which have been documented. john k (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There’s nothing special about Anna Anderson. She impersonated a dead grand duchess for many decades and wanted to be in the centre of attention. She’s been proven to be a fraud for over seventy years. She made up a story about her Tschaikovsky a so called "Bolshevik" that saved Anastasia. She claimed that she married him and had a baby and he was shot dead. There were no records of a Bolshevik named Tschaikovsky. This fantasy story that AA made up proves that she is a fraud.

It’s obvious why AA pretended to be Anastasia- it was for fame and money. She wanted to have the Romanov fortune. She wasn’t happy with her life as FS- a poor factory worker. AA couldn’t speak Russian, French or fluent English. Anastasia, on the other hand knew these languages fluently. First,Clara Peuthert suggested that she was Tatiana. That’s when she started to claim to be Tatiana.Then when Sophie Buxhoevden came to see AA she told her she couldn't be Tatiana because she was too short. Then that’s when AA started to be Anastasia! If she was SO sure she was Anastasia, then she wouldn’t have claimed to be Tatiana first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlixofHesse (talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You and Finnegan should talk - it seems as though you have identical opinions on everything. john k (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fact and it's stated in Sohpie Buxhoevedon's and Pierre Gilliard's memoirs. This information is a fact NOT an opinion... AlixofHesse (talk) 21:36, 24 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: [2]

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 curious 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)

Dr. you need to understand the history of this junk and how AA supporters have tried to stick this untrue story into our factual article for years. We have fought hard over this. If you add this stupid story, the article will lose its credibility. We cannot verify it happened, because the only original source is one person's word for it, and the background info does not add up. While I do agree Massie is the most respected Romanov historian, this doesn't mean every little thing he does is above reproach. In "Romanovs the Final Chapter" he mentions it as one sentence in passing, obviously he got this basic line from Kurth's book and never gave it a second thought. If he had, he would have realized it was impossible. Also you need to read the entire nurse story, not just that the nurse said something. In the whole story, she is maiing claims that could not have happened, due to the fact that AA was not Anastasia and had not had any exposure to the people who knew the family yet. Please answer me, if you think there is any truth to it, HOW did she get that info, considering she wasn't Anastasia? Because it was impossible, this proves the story is bogus. You have to use your noggin here, think! REVIEW THE DETAILS

• AA had no record of talking to anyone and not giving any identity until the day Clara P. said she was Tatiana. She never said she was Anastasia, and did nothing but cower under the covers. Once denounced as "Tatiana" she allegedly said she wasn't Tatiana, but still never said she was Anastasia, until Baron von Kleist had her mark out all the other names on a piece of paper. It was no coincidence that Anastasia was the only girl who shared her height. AA feigned apparent 'amnesia' to explain her lack of memories of her life as "Anastasia', and did not have any knowledge of them until she left the asylum and started hanging out with emigres'. SO do you buy, or expect me to buy, that the year before she was even called Tatiana, she ran to this ONE person with this long, detailed, elaborate story of information she could not possibly have had access to, told it, then went back to being silent? Please see through this lie. The only way it could have happened is if she were the real Anastasia, and we know that wasn't true. However, this is why Chat desperately wants it in the story, because it bolsters his side and will encourage readers to think the same. This is why we DO NOT want it. Alexius Horatius, who broke up the edit war, agreed with Finneganw and I that we were right to object because the story made it appear she was Anastasia. This story was invented by those who aimed to advance AA's cause, most likely for a big payoff if she won. There were a lot of such 'testimonies' which were not true, and they have no place in a factual article. There is also the fact that the nurse said it happened in '1922' in her newspaper interview, then later tried to change it and blamed the paper for the 'error.' Clearly, someone was trying desperately to predate the Clara P. claim. The Clara P. claim is obviously when the story really began, nothing before, and that is what the article should state. Leave this piece of fiction out of our hard fought, hard worked on article. Please believe Finneganw and I, who have been through so much here, we DO know what we are talking about here. This story cannot be true, by logical deduction. Remember the Judge Judy rule, if it doesn't make sense, it's not true. We need to THINK and decide for ourselves and not accept things blindly. Since this is a much shorter article, we need to be a lot more selective. I will never give consensus to this fake story, and I am quite stunned anyone is even considering it.Aggiebean (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read the Massie book pages 163-64 paperback and I must say that I am sorry to report that while he is an expert on the Romanovs, his version of AA's story is wrong. It even disagrees with the Kurth version. He makes no mention of Peuthert or how she came to be called "Tatiana" and makes it appear the claim began when she showed a nurse (name not mentioned) the magazine in the fall of 1921. The magazine itself was from the fall of 1921, but it wasn't until early 1922 that Clara P. used it to say that AA was "Tatiana." Did you consider that the likely reason the preposterous nurse story was omitted from the books by Welch and Klier is that they could see and take for granted with their own common sense that the story could not have happened and it actually all began with Peuthert. Massie's version is also incorrect to say that after she was said not to be Tatiana she 'told the nurses she was Anastasia.' This never happened. It was Baron von Kleist, and she never said it, but chose the name by marking out the others on paper, as I explained before. I must give a D-to Massie for his summations of the AA story. No one's perfect!Aggiebean (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are continuing an argument from June about whether to insert "Anderson confessed to a nurse that she was Anastasia". That argument is already resolved: the sentence cannot be added because it is disputed (by Anderson herself) and untrue (she was not Anastasia).

You have provided no proof whatsoever that the sentences proposed on the draft page are disputed or untrue. DrKiernan (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree that this is the right way to deal with the issue. Aggiebean's and Finnegan's objections are basically original research. john k (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't see through it plainly as I have described, there is nothing I can do. It is obvious the story could not be true for the reasons I mentioned. If we're going to get into the pro AA thing where if we can't refute their garbage with a source it stands, I want nothing to do with this article, because there is going to be a lot of such stuff that is OBVIOUSLY DISCREDITED by the fact alone that AA was not AN, and just because no one has yet put it in a book in so many words does not change that reality. The AA story is full of such fallicies, and if you are going to allow Chat and john, and yes I totally consider john in the same category as Chat since their positions are identical, we will not have a factual article. Finneganw and I have been fighting the nonsense for years and it would be a shame to have a person who really doesn't know the story as we do come in here and decide these things based on a preference for the poster Johnk only. Other mods have agreed with us, and we do know what we are talking about. Do you want wikipedia to spread adn perpetuate the false myths spread by AA supporters for years? Don't you think it's time that they stopped? Why not write an article above reproach, containing nothing questionable, for the sake of reality? We owe it to the readers not to be misled by outdated and incorrect pro AA propaganda.

I also want to know why you will not take the word of finneganw and I on this that we will not consent for the consensus. Is the consensus over, and you are going to do what you want? If this has changed, let me know now. After all in the past it has been your position to avoid issues which have been disputed, such as only a few days ago when you told us to have 'no Olga quotes' because Finneganw and I doubted Rathlef's version and Chat doubted that of Vorres. That would make a lot more sense, to simply avoid the issues which are not agreed upon, because if people fight this hard, they have good reason. So tell me straight out, is the consensus over?Aggiebean (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to include the quotes from Olga saying she thought Anderson was a phoney, then they should be balanced with the earlier quotes from Olga that biographers have used in the past to infer that she thought she was genuine. The reason for excluding quotes from Olga was to avoid unnecessary tit-for-tat quote matching, and a complicated explanation of exactly what biographers have said Olga thought when and to whom she expressed such thoughts.

There is nothing discredited at all about what I have written with regard to the nurse's story. Everything that I have written on the nurse's story is entirely factual. It is also balanced, neutral, verifiable and short. Your grounds for objecting to it are invalid, and consequently need not be taken into account when judging consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I still cannot understand why we have to have 'balance' to a discredied POV. It's the same thing as if you were to give equal time to the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. I see now this article is a lost cause. You have already made up your mind to go with the pro AA POV. What a pity for the readers and students who will come here looking for accurate information.Aggiebean (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What a pity for the readers and students who will come here and find an article fixated more on debunking AA=Anastasia without providing the full context of the matter. AA’s notability lies in the claims made by her supporters. You can’t honestly believe that this argument – which I have made before – is akin to filling half of September 11 attacks with the conspiracy theories associated with it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that we have articles on 9-11 conspiracy theories which describe those theories in detail, right? We have a lengthy article on the 9/11 Truth Movement (57K) and another, even lengthier one on 9/11 conspiracy theories (112K). The basic issue here seems to be that neither you nor Finnegan has any idea of how Wikipedia works, or of how Wikipedia deals with other, comparable issues, which makes sense given that you seem only to edit this article. john k (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography (2)

And now, with the weekend and the drama behind us, shall we go on with the bio and maybe finish the article un bel di? ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added more to Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle. DrKiernan (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, do continue, maybe this thing can be finished sometime. Only one little thing: She did not call herself Anna, only Anastasia. But she did not want anybody to know who she was, so the Kleist's were told to call her "Fräulein Annie" in company.ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We need a source for that because my sources say it was "Anna". DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

From Gleb Botkin's book: She was released from Dalldorf in 1922, her official designation changed from that of Miss Unknown to Mrs. Anastasia Tschaikovsky. From Peter Kurth, page 31: Nobody yet dared call her Anastasia in public, and so. after flirting with various Russian diminutives. baron von Kleist settled on the ambiguous and faintly vulgar "Fräulein Anny."ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a single reference from Botkin can justify removing something agreed by three other, more recent, biographies. To try and address this, I've put "Anastasia Tschaikovsky" into the next paragraph [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Three more recent biographies? Written by people who were not there when the story took place? Oh well, it's not a very important detail, but nobody called her Anna until she came back from USA and the press stuck to the name Anna Anderson.

Now for Volkov, Shura, Gilliard and Olga. Volkov stated to Frau Rathlef: Just think of the position I am in! Supposing I were to say that it is she, and others later on maintain that it is not, what would my position be then? Later in life, he confessed that he believed her to be the Grand Duchess, but why could the Grand Duchess not speak any Russian? Shura identified the body scars, the eyes, the color of the hair and the Hallux Valgus. Upon leaving, she sobbed: I used to love her so much, so much...Why do I love this girl here so much? If you knew how I felt. Gilliard was the one who asked Professor Rudnev if the Grand Duchess could get well again. Later, he left Berlin without being able to say that she was not the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna. Olga clearly stated to Herluf Zahle that: My heart tells me it is Anastasia. She would also write AA, telling her: I remember the times we were together. To say that they did not recognize her as Anastasia is just not correct. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Anna" is supported by original documents quoted by von Nidda.

That's why it says "eventually". They may have been uncertain originally, but they later all said she was an imposter. DrKiernan (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That they "may" have been uncertain is definitely an understatement, given their own writings after the meeting. I realize you are looking for the easy way out of this tangled story, but you should at least include that they left Berlin without being able to say that she was NOT AN, and then later denied her. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Though they expressed sympathy, if only for Tschaikovsky's illness, and made no immediate public declaration, eventually they all denied she was Anastasia. DrKiernan (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe von Nidda is being considered a credible source. The book is fiction. It has never been used in this article for that reason.Aggiebean (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We've already had this argument: my response remains the same [4]. DrKeirnan (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect to Irene, didn't Anderson also not seem to recognize Irene, in addition to Irene not recognizing her? john k (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As usual whether or not she recognised her is disputed. The supporters say she did, the opponents say she didn't. DrKiernan (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Might as well go back to the article we had!

The reason we wanted to delete this and start over is because it was TOO LONG and TOO CONTENTIOUS. We wanted to start all over writing a shorter, more concise version without all the quotes, name dropping and extraeneous details, in an effort to stop disagreements and make it all easier for the layman to understand. Well look what happened- it's being rewritten at a rate where it's going to be much LONGER than what we deleted, and it's even more contentious since it's basically just a rewrite of Kurth's book. Before any more time and trouble is wasted, why not go back to the last edit we had before it was deleted, which had been carefully written over time by me, Finneganw, Chat, bookworm and a few others. Give it a look before saying no. You might save a lot of trouble for everyone by just admitting we ALL made a mistake by deleting it in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anna_Anderson&diff=294518009&oldid=294496759 Aggiebean (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No. The new article will aim for a size of 30-50 kB which will be at least half of the original length. I've looked at the old article. It's awful: poorly-sourced, badly-written, badly-structured, poorly-formatted, poorly-balanced, full of typos, and contains unsubstantiated and bias opinion. The new article is better. DrKeirnan (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, that old article was the biggest mess ever created on Wikipedia.ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. This article is far from perfect but it is much better than the other one was and it certainly is not "basically just a rewrite of Kurth's book". This article gives enough information and sources for readers to follow up, read further and make their own minds up, which is how it should be. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed biography

More added at Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle#Castle Seeon (1927). DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And what happened to Tatiana Botkin? Is she to be conveniently left out? And why the opinion of Dmitri Leuchtenberg, whose "opinions" have been proven to be rather dubious? And Felix Schanzkowski's daughter's utterings are nothing more than hearsay. Please stick to the FACTS!ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting the Botkins and Felix Dassel into the next paragraph. Why is Dmitri dubious? I am sticking to the facts. It's a fact she said that. DrKiernan (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fact that he said that, but it is only his opinion that he states. He was also the one who stated that AA spoke, read and understood no English, and that the dentist Kastritsky had given testimony against AA when he could do no such thing due to not having brought any of his charts out of Russia. And as we all know, AA left Seeon for New York where she spoke nothing but English from the day she set sail from France. And yes, it is a fact that Felix's niece said what she said. But it is hearsay, no matter what. And since you are clearly skirting Olga's own WRITINGS, why is is important to incorporate hearsay from a person who never met AA or FS? And who, in addition, liked to be paid for her "memories".ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've included a paragraph on Melnik. Yes, that it is his opinion. So? I am happy to add that Felix's daughter was paid. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you so skittish when it comes to Olga and Gilliard?ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Olga and Gilliard are already covered. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Covered? Where is Olga's declaration that "I believe in my heart that she is Anastasia?" Where are her writings after the meeting where she professes to "Think of you all the time, longing to see you, remembering the times we were together?" Where are Gilliard's comments as to "when will the Grand Duchess recover?" Where are his letters to Frau Rathlef after the meeting? It seems to me that you put more weight on a comment from Dmitri Leuchtenberg and an un-sourced comment from Felix's niece. Clearly, you are trying to make this article lopsided. And Tatiana Botkin coached AA with details of the life of the Imperial Family? How did she know these details when she and her brother only played with the Imperial children in the Crimea and otherwise only saw them virtyally every day at the church, parades, bazaars and other public functions? ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of the sentence covering Olga and Gilliard is unnecessary and, given the length of the article already, undesirable. Felix's daughter's recollection is sourced to Klier & Mingay and to Vorres. Botkin's coaching of Anderson is sourced to Godl, Gilliard and von Nidda, and even in some sense to Botkin herself: "[she] must be led and directed like a child". DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can very well understand that covering Olga and Gilliard is undesirable, it will clearly show that they were both lying. When did Godl become a quotable source? He is only speculating. And Felix's daughter's recollection is sourced to Klier and Mingay and to Vorres? According to Klier and Mingay, she is supposed to have told reporters about her brother's comments. What reporters? What publication? When? If this is "sourcing", I think we can "source" almost anything!ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As Olga herself said of claims that she recognised Anderson as Anastasia: "That is a complete lie." (Letter from Olga to Irene dated 22 December 1926 quoted by von Nidda on page 168 of I, Anastasia) Your attempt to introduce bias and disputed material that is obviously neither neutral nor balanced will fail. The weight of evidence that says Olga denounced her as a fraud is far greater than the few snippets you can drag up to the contrary. I have given you reliable sources for my draft. You have provided none for what appears to be your unsubstantiated and original opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed material? Since when are Olga's own letters to AA in dispute? She clearly writes: "My thoughts are with you - I am remembering the times when we were together, when you stuffed me with chocolates, tea and cocoa." You mean to tell me that she remembers being with FS? And why in the world would she entrust a total stranger with a personal photo album? And why would she return Harriet von Rathlef's manuscript, telling Herluf Zahle that it was "quite correct"? And why did she wait 3 months before she denounced AA per Gilliard's request? I think my opinion is very substantiated and not at least original. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained, and provided sources, that Olga herself disputes this. For further example, she herself explained that her letters were sent out of compassion for an invalid. The letters Olga sent to Anderson never call her Anastasia or refer to her as anything other than a friend. She remembered the times they were together in the hospital. You're just pushing your own POV agenda once again without looking at the broader picture. DrKiernan (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Olga did indeed dispute this to the bitter end. Why not just say "I was wrong" and leave it at that? The lady protested much too much. And I am sure she was not stuffed with chocolates etc. at the Mommsen clinic. And what happened to "We shall not abandon you?" And why did she write her mother's secretary: "Poor Mamma, how can I tell her? This will kill her." And why would she tell Frau Rathlef that: "Shura and our Malenkaya (little one) seem happy to have found each other again" and later describe Frau Rathlef's rendition as "quite correct"? And why would she tell Ambassador and Mrs. Zahle that "My heart believes that she is Anastasia?" And why did Gilliard tell the same couple that "We are going away without being able to say that she is not Anastasia?" ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You've already said all that, and I've already given my response. Repeating the same point which has already been addressed is trolling. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to 'get the point', Wikipedia:Gaming the system (example 7 "stonewalling"), and meta:What is a troll?#Pestering. DrKiernan (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have gotten your response, and it has not satisfied me. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I tend to agree with ChatNoir regarding use of Klier & Mingay. Their book isn't very good and is basically a rehash of Massie and Kurth and doesn't give any sources at all. I'm not disputing that Felix's daughter may have said what they say she did, but she asked for money, never met AA and therefore it is pure hearsay anyway. If it's in Vorres, does he give details about when and to whom she said these things? You can't put these kind of statements in without evidence to back them up.

I also think if you include Dmitri Leuchtenberg's view, you have to also say that other members of his immediate family had exactly the opposite opinion. It's a prime example of how the question of this woman's identity caused tensions and arguments within the family (I refer to the wider Romanov family here, by the way.)Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well my copy of Klier and Mingay lists 11 newspapers and journals, and 60 articles and monographs. John Klier was a Professor of History at University College London [5][6]. Your claim that he is not a reliable source is frankly absurd.

Added. DrKiernan (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my copy also lists the same sources. And still there is no reference to where and when these comments were published. Maybe you would like to include the report from the Berlin Police as well which states that FS was murdered by Grossmann in 1920. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how serious you are about including that but I did consider it seriously. I'm not familiar with the report that Schanzkowska was killed by Grossmann in 1920, but you may mean 1921. I have three versions of Schanzkowska's later life from those who think that Anderson was Anastasia rather than Franziska:

1. von Nidda's (page 215): "The Berlin police informed Witt [George Witt, a friend of the Schanzkowski family] that to the best of their knowledge Franciska [sic] had been murdered in August 1921 by the mass-murderer Grossmann".
2. von Rathlef's: Schanzkowska was murdered by "a notorious criminal gang". Klier and Mingay call this an "improbable assertion" which von Rathlef "later retracted" (page 106).
3. Kurth's (page 355): "Wollmann [Carl-August Wollmann, Anderson's attorney in the 1960s] told them about the three nurses who had recently run across the published photograph of Franziska Schanzkowska and had written him to say that Franziska had been a patient under their care in the asylum at Herrenprotsch, near Breslau, from 1929 to 1934."

I don't see why you should favor number 1 over the other two, though I see number 2 is easily countered and number 3 is too mundane to stimulate morbid curiosity in the way that number 1 does. Personally, I don't see how number 1 can be introduced without also mentioning the other two alongside suitable countering evidence and statements. It sounds to me like a recipe for confusion, digression and verbiage, which is all rather unnecessary given that we now know with virtual certainty that Anderson was Schanzkowska. DrKiernan (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The police arrested Grossmann in August of 1921, and they found a list of his victims which included a certain miss Saznovski. The police connected her with miss Schanzkowska and informed the family that she had been killed by the mass murderer. Unfortunately, I cannot tell the exact date of the murder, but some unconfirmed sources say August of 1920. As for the hearsay from Felix's daughter, maybe you should instead include the letter from Gertrude's daughter, Margarete, sent to her uncle, Felix Schanzkowski, on May 16, 1959, in which Franziska’s niece urges Franziska’s brother to "recognize" Anna Anderson and realize her potential for the family: "It's not everyone who can say he has a full-blooded sister whom powerful and important people have mistaken for decades as the daughter of the tsar!" ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Small correction: The trip to America was not arranged by Botkin who had no means of his own to pay for the trip. Through Mrs. Derfelden, he was contacted by Xenia Leeds, who invited AA to her estate and arranged for the travel. She even sent her children's nanny, Agnes Gallagher to pick her up in Paris and make sure she had a safe voyage.ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Amended. DrKiernan (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Anna Anderson/proposedarticle expanded further. DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to it, lads!!

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

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

Further suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berenberg and Romanov quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've already explained to you how to use the "History" tab and the "Compare selected revisions" button to examine edits to a page [7]. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to constantly repeat myself. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

Writing and formatting

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

• Changed

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

• Added

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

• Removed

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

• Removed

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

• Both. Schanzkowska is female, Schanzkowski male.

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

• Reviewed

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

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

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

• Changed.

• Avoid one-sentence paragraphs

• Removed

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

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

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

• Moved.

Accuracy and verifiability

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

• Changed

• Citations needed for:

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

• Should be consistent in what information is included in Notes

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

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

• Removed

• Vorres is only in References

• Removed

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

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

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

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

• No examples given.

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

• No examples given.

Stability

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

• One of the editors involved, User:Finneganw, is now topic banned, and another, User:RevAntonio, has invoked right to vanish [8]. Further extensive disruption is unlikely.

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

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

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

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

Images

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

• Corrected.

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

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

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

• Image removed.

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

• Image removed.

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

• Image removed.

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

• Corrected.

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

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

Comments from an IP

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

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

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

To be specific:

• von Nidda's commentary on "I, Anastasia" is a secondary source, as already said here: [9]. It is not a bogus source if used selectively, appropriately, and in addition to other sources and balancing material. The IP even admits: "there is no other source saying in so many words that they are discredited".
• The claim "Chat, who has been banned and blocked several times over the last 2 years," is untrue. User:ChatNoir24, to whom the IP is referring, has never been banned or blocked, see [10].
• As the IP admits there are at least three editors "Chat" "JohnK" and "Dr. K", who disagree with the editor's viewpoint, but the editor persists in pushing their own agenda against the majority consensus view.
• The claim that "simply and accurately" is "flowery nonsense" is untrue. The statement is supported by two sources, one of which is written by John Klier, who was a Professor of History at University College London [11][12]. The other sources used are of a similar high quality, such as Robert K. Massie, who is a former Rhodes Scholar who studied history at Yale and Oxford before winning the Pulitzer Prize for biography. These are obviously reliable sources. The IP is merely trying to remove sourced material with which they disagree in an attempt to bias the article to their own original viewpoint.
• The claim that the "old article qualified" as a better article than this one can be easily dismissed simply by looking at the version which the IP prefers: [13]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claim that she was Tatiana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A NEW TACK MIGHT HELP

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