Revision as of 15:17, 18 June 2009

Anna Anderson received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

Way forward?

Consensus is to reduce the page to the lead and references for now. Removed material can be seen in the archive here. DrKiernan (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Responses to 'Way Forward'

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

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

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

Yes, yes, yes

This is exactly the way forward, DrKiernan. And I'd like to help by expanding on what might remain. Hopefully others will jump in POSITIVELY.

1. We state that Anna Anderson Manahan was the "legally accepted name" of Franziska Schanskowska, a Kashoubian national, native of Poland. We provide info as if it were an obituary.

2. We explain that for all of her known adult life, she fraudulently claimed to be HIH the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanov, daughter of Czar Nikolas Romanov. We must be accurate historically, to explain why she was believed by many.

3. We must explain--though I'm not sure how, if we won't name any names--how author Peter Kurth wrote a fraudulent biography of "Anna" in 1982. This is to show how the fraud regained an audience in the early 1980s. We also add that Kurth sold the rights of his book to be mae into a television movie starring Amy Irving.

4. We conclude with the finding of HIH's remians and the mtDNA results published in August of last year (2008).

Now, we must address certain problems: do we create/link it to a Franziska Schanskowska page, a Schanzkowski Family page, or someting like that? Ater all, she was really F.S.

Do we link the entry to the page on HIH Anastasia? Or to the Romanov page? This is in the realm of conpiracy theories that the Imperial Family survived. There are several reliable sources that confirm the existence of these theories, and several more who name all the "Anastasias" who cropped up... Anna Anderson Manahan was singled out by a couple of authors such as Massie, biographer of the Tsar and Tsarina.

These are queries that must be investigated, because the page cannot stand alone, unlinked and ignored. I'm aware that many, many objections will arise. But I defer these extraneous items to the others. s long as they are reasonable, don't shout, don't insult and don't bully.75.21.124.148 (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to 75.21.124.148 about moving the Anna Anderson page along

I can live with most of what you have written. I think one sentence can sum up Kurth's attempt at fraud. I don't think there is any need for a Franziska Schankowska page as she was Anderson. This can be clearly stated. There is no need for a link to the Grand Duchess Anastasia page as she had no connection to her. There are no conspiracy theories in existence. They all died when Anderson's real identity was exposed. I think it is worthwhile to note that there were other fraudsters claiming to be Anastasia as well. For too long it has been basically denied that they existed in an effort to build up Anderson. I really don't think there are any queries that are in existence. Basically Anderson and her supporters tried to pass her off as Anastasia and have been exposed. It's really very simple and doesn't need a long list of explanations. Keeping the current reference listings will direct interested readers to those texts or websites. As for the name Manahan, Anderson was the name she used for most of her life. Remember she also used Tschiakovsky as well. It is important to realise that I have never had any axe to grind. I have simply wanted historical and scientific fact presented here at wikipedia rather than fantasy and fraud. Finneganw 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Riposte-repost

I just wanted to clarify a few items from my above post: I DO NOT say Anna was Anastasia, because I have clearly stated that I know she was not. What I mean by the conspiracy theories is that they are well documented, dating back to 1919. Massie is one of the reliable sources confirming these theories that the Imperial Family survived. We cannot ignore that. Also, we cannot ignore the phony Anastasias who cropped up like Brussels sprouts, and that Franziska was the most famous. We may also want to add that in Anna's case, it was the smartest, tightest hoax of the 20th century. Is this clear?75.21.124.148 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

smartest, tightest hoax of the 20th century is the sort of pov that needs to go. If this proposed rewrite is going to succeed we'll need to start with the basic facts and keep things such as this out of the article. For the record, I don't think Kurth's book is a good source since he clearly was too involved with her to be considered an independent source. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But a problem with 'sticking to basic facts' is that this unfortunately plays into the hands of the AA supporters because they feel like they can use a quote from Kurth's book to say she 'remembered' something and have a page number to back it up. Kurth's book is largely based on the writings of Rathlef and Botkin, two supporters who wrote books and articles touting her cause and claiming the family really believed her but 'turned their backs' for money and other ulterior motives. This is the version that is now disproven and should not be perpetuated in this article as fact. Now that we know she wasn't really Anastasia and there is no more question, such things should not be regarded as 'facts' or put in the article in a way to show that they actually happened. Another example is the 'nurse' story. Chat claims that she 'came out in 1921', though all the details of the story run against and out of character and timeline(though even she had trouble with the dates) with what occurred later. The nurse, via Rathlef, is the only source for it. If AA was still silent in 1922 when Peuthart (fellow mental asylum patient who had magazines on the royal family) called her 'Tatiana', why, if she had already 'come out as Anastasia', giving gory details of her murder and escape a year earlier, then going back into silence? It makes no sense. When she was called 'Tatiana' this is when all the action started, and it would have sooner if such a claim had happened sooner. Obviously, Peuthart started it all in 1922 when she was looking at a magazine with a story called 'Is one of the Tsar's daugthers alive?' and said AA looked like Tatiana. At the time, AA only trembled and hid under the sheets, she never said she was not Tatiana but Anastasia, as you'd think she would if she had really 'come out' earlier. Also consider that in the 'nurse' story she gave much detail, yet when the claim first started she knew and said nothing of a life as "Anastasia" until she began to be helped with her 'escape' story by Peuthart and Von Kleist (whose more fantastic versions were ignored by Kurth in his book for the more sympathetic version honed later by Rathlef) According to the AA story told by supporters, she still had a lack of memory until 1925 when Rathlef started helping her 'remember' and visits from emigres', along with their stories of Imperial Russia, increased. So think about it, the idea that she would claim to be Anastasia and have all those memories in 1921, then in 1922 not deny being "Tatiana" until refuted, and having no 'memories' until years later does not add up. Clearly, the nurse story is either a complete fabrication by her and Rathlef in order to help AA's claim (which is possibly why after telling the paper it happened in 1922 changed it to 21 and said they had made a mistake- she needed to change it to predate the Peuthart incident to try to give the claim more validity) My conclusion is that the nurse story either didn't happen at all or happened at a later date after the Peuthart claim began. Either way, there is no way this article should ever state as an open fact that 'she came out in 1921.' She couldn't have, because she wasn't really Anastasia, and until the claim began in 1922, she didn't even have any info to use for 'memories'. This is just one example of things that are no longer valid. I have others but that's enough for now.Aggiebean (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No POV language allowed on either side. Anything added needs to be cited line for line, with author's name, titles, publication information, and page numbers. We should use an agreed upon reference system and use that for each citation. I think Kurth's book has some value as an accounting of the events of Anderson's life, compared against other works about her, but we can discuss that as we go. As far as the lead goes it doesn't contain enough information about Anderson's life. I'd probably add a few more established details about Anderson's life and avoid making it solely about her claim to be Anastasia. Something like this, adding more detail and references about the DNA testing and claims, of course:

"Anastasia Manahan, usually known as Anna Anderson, was the best known of several women who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia. This claim has been conclusively been proven false through DNA testing and most now believe she was factory worker Franziska Schanzkowska. Grand Duchess Anastasia was killed with her family and her remains have now been identified. Manahan first made this claim following a suicide attempt in Germany on such and such date, etc, etc. Decades of court trials and publicity followed. She was supported by a few, but most people, including most members of Anastasia's family and those who had known her, including court tutor Pierre Gilliard, said she could not be the grand duchess. The Schanzkowski family said such and such about Franziska's early years and about her later claim.

Manahan lived in the United States for a time (more information about her living arrangements could be filled in), returned to Germany, where she lived during World War II (more info about living arrangements), then later emigrated to the United States, where she married the very eccentric Manahan (more information about how and where they lived, her later years, etc.) She died. More info on how the testing was done on a piece of her intestine left behind in the hospital following a medical procedure, how it is compared against the Romanov profile, and later against the Schanzkowski profile, updates on DNA making it more likely she was Schanzkowska, etc. etc. etc. Keep it all short and succinct. The end." --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New Start for Anna Anderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues already emerging due to ChatNoir24 pushing discredited sources

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

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

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

Lead

I think we need to move away from the specifics and details for a moment. I'd like to first consider the overall general structure of the lead, i.e. the subject matter of each paragraph of the lead but not the detail.

So, a standard biography might begin with a first paragraph stating who the person was and why they are famous. The second paragraph might cover their early life before fame. The third paragraph might cover their major achievements and a final paragraph might sum up their legacy.

I think it would be beneficial to restrict comments and discussion for now on this sort of general outline of the lead only. Once that is decided we can discuss the specific content of each paragraph in turn, but only then. I hope that this will provide a better structure for the debate, and provide an opportunity for more focused discussion of specifics and details later on. DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to 'Lead'

DrKiernan thank you for your helpful advice.

I think the real problem here is that Anderson was never who she claimed to be. That presents us with a considerable problem as some still do not wish to accept this even though it has been 99.9% proven by extensive DNA testing that she was Franziska Schankowska. There is no record of any early life for Anderson apart from Schankowska. Anderson once an adult claimed fraudlently that she was Grand Duchess Anastasia. That has been proved to be 100% wrong. For a time she went by the name Fraulein Unbekannt (German for Miss Unknown} as she refused to reveal her identity to anybody in the mental hospital she had been placed in due to a suicide attempt. Later she adopted the false name of Tschiakovsky and later Anderson. Late in her life she married a John Manahan and adopted his name. She is mainly known as Anderson although she really was Schankowska. As you can see it is not easy to establish her name hence the name she used for most of her life, Anderson. This leads to problems in Paragraph 2 as you have kindly suggested. Paragraph 3 really is a minefield as Anderson really achieved nothing major apart from trying unsuccessfully to steal the identity of a murdered 17 year old Grand Duchess. She was in fact quite notorious, not famous, and during her life slandered along with a great many of her supporters those who actually knew the real Anastasia. Her legacy is of a rather pathetic old woman who after death was proved to be a complete fraud. Certainly there will be nobody like her again as DNA testing during life will rule them out. I'm not sure as a result whether we can use your well considered 3 paragraphs as she doesn't really fit into them easily. That is why I say it is crucial from the beginning to state she was not who she claimed to be and to give the reasons clearly why so that no fraud can be pushed on wikipedia about her identity as has been tried for a number of years, sadly resulting in edit wars caused by her supporters and resulting in your current intervention. Thanks for all you are trying to do. It is much appreciated. Finneganw 08:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that there are specific problems. My example was a very general one, deliberately so. What I'm trying to get to first is just an agreement on how to structure the topics in the lead, not what actually goes in it. I would prefer to discuss the specifics later, taking each paragraph in turn.

For example, the lead could be structured as below. Note I am not trying to add or remove any information, sources, opinions, or material. I am just trying to organise the material that is already there:

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

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

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

Anderson's body was cremated upon her death in 1984. Her ashes were buried in the churchyard at Castle Seeon, Germany. Ten years later, DNA tests were conducted on samples of her tissue that had been stored at a Charlottesville, Virginia hospital following a medical procedure. Anderson's mitochondrial DNA is a match to the Schanzkowska family, which indicates that she was Schanzkowska. Remains from all seven members of the Imperial family, including two sets of remains that had been missing until August 2007, have now been identified through DNA testing. The DNA tests showed that Anderson's DNA did not match in any way the Romanov remains or Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (a great-nephew of Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna), but was consistent with the mitochondrial DNA profile of Karl Maucher, a great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska. Scientists announced in July 2008 that the results have been independently verified by laboratories such as the University of Massachusetts Medical School in the United States. This confirms that all the Romanovs were murdered. Years after the original testing was done, Dr. Terry Melton stated that the DNA sequence tying Anderson to the Schanzkowska family was still unique though the database of DNA patterns has grown much larger, leading to increased confidence she was indeed Franziska Schanzkowsa.

The remains of Grand Duchess Anastasia were brought by aircraft from Ekaterinburg and buried on 17 July 1998 in the Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral St. Catherine's Chapel, St. Petersburg, by order of the Russian government, along with those of Nicholas and Alexandra, and Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana.

The question is "Is this an acceptable organisation of material"?

75.21... has also suggested a way to organise material : 1. Statement of who she was. 2. Her claim. 3. Kurth's biography and popular culture. 4. DNA evidence.

And Bookworm has also made a suggestion . 1. Statement. 2. Claim. 3. Her life. 4. DNA evidence.

What is an appropriate sequence of topics? DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true under the odd circumstances the normal format for an article doesn't fit. As for the above example I have a few issues that should be addressed:

1. The part that says (in (year) she claimed) is inviting one of the worst arguments, since Anderson supporters allege she 'came out' to a nurse in 1921 but this is not proven and makes very little sense with the rest of the story. I have written extensively on this on one of these talk pages, I think it was AA, it may now even be archived. I can do it again if anyone wants to be bored by it. But the issue is this would be a bad way to start the story due to previous intense controversy- as a matter of fact this is one of the main sources of the edit war. Really, the unquestionable evidence says the claim began in the spring of 1922 when a fellow mental patient said she looked like Tatiana (Anastasia's sister) and she switched to Anastasia after a visitor said she was too short to be Tatiana. Also, SHE never actually claimed to be Anastasia, it was others saying she was, and she played along.

2.I think the court case is too big to be left out, because the lure of the presumed Romanov fortune was what made her claim last longer than other impostors who had no lawsuit. Also we could mention briefly who all backed or fought her and their reasons.

3. This may sound strange coming from me, but I do not think the part about Anastasia's remains being interred in 1998 should be stated as fact, since even the scientists involved in the testing are unsure if that is Anastasia or Maria, or if the burned body is one of the two. Let me state there is NO controversy over whether or not both were died with the family and were identified as daughters of the Tsar and Tsarina genetically, because this has been scientifically proven. However it is admitted by all but a few Russians that we can never be certain which one was buried in 1998 and which one was found burned in 2007, so perhaps that part should just be left out so the article can be above reproach of any question or controversy. I do not think the question of who is who should even be mentioned in the article since this only lends itself to more unwelcome speculation. The entire family died in 1918 and their remains have all been accounted for, that's all we need to say.

I have not read the other two prospects, I will comment on them next and hopefully write one of my own to offer for consideration. I haven't had time.Aggiebean (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, in the other articles I've written and had critiqued, it's usually noted that the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. A biography should cover the complete life of a person in succinct fashion. Since it's a biography of Anderson, it cannot and should not include only the details about DNA testing and her claim to be Anastasia. It should include something about her life. She was born here, she lived here, she made a suicide attempt here, her story became well known because of media coverage, trials, movies, etc. She lived in the United States, then in Germany during World War II, then returned to the United States, married Jack Manahan at the arrangement of Gleb Botkin, lived in Charlottesville, was widely considered eccentric and her home was cluttered and unsanitary, she died. DNA testing done on a piece of her intestine and on a piece of her hair conclusively proved she was not Anastasia and probably was Franziska Schanzkowska. Massie's book also includes some commentary from a relative of Schanzkowska's about her early life, which probably ought to be included briefly. I came across contemporary magazine and newspaper articles about the Anderson case when I was writing the Grand Duchess Anastasia article that could be referenced. I'm not sure if Lovell's "Anastasia: The Lost Princess" is useable since he's widely considered a fraud, but he did reference some recordings that were made of Anderson in the 1960s that illustrates how wacky some of the stories she told were, particularly about the supposed fifth Romanov daughter she recognized.

I prefer this language for the opening sentences to what is currently the lead: "Anastasia Manahan, usually known as Anna Anderson, was the best known of several women who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia. This claim has been conclusively been proven false through DNA testing and most now believe she was actually a Kashubian factory worker named Franziska Schanzkowska. (cite references as above.) Grand Duchess Anastasia was killed with her family on July 17, 1918 and her remains have now been identified." And so on. There were a number of famous "Anastasia" claimants, so we identify her as the most well known.--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the discussion is breaking down into details of multiple points. I think you need to keep discussion focused on one specific issue. I specifically invited comments on the sequence of topics only. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to talk sequence only, I still say it should be organized in terms of the most important facts first, then the second most important, third most important, etc., as in any good news article. In Anderson's case, it's 1. who she was and why she's worth an article, 2. the claims she made and why they are false. On reconsideration, I'd flip the DNA evidence with her life since the DNA evidence proves why the claims are false. The brief account of her life just says who she was, what she did, where she lived, what spread her notoriety, etc. It should all be very, very succinct. I don't think we need to go into exhaustive detail on any of it, but it should be a complete account, nonetheless. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there should be no doubt whatsoever about who she was and that is directly linked to the DNA testing of her remains. I agree with Bookworm that the article needs to be quite succint. A complete account though is very difficult to achieve without disagreement. Anderson's account is extremely inaccurate and discredited. I think the main points only should be dealt with and they are that she was never who she claimed to be. She was a fraud for most of her life denying her true identity. That is what the main focus of the article should be. She was never ever legally accepted as Anastasia. In the end her whole life was an abject failure trying to be somebody she never was and rejecting her real identity. That all in all was rather pathetic. Finneganw 15:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A few corrections here: There are no allegations from Anderson supporters that she came out to nurse Malinovsky as Anastasia in the fall of 1921. Thea Malinovsky's testimony is preserved at Houghton Library, Harvard, clearly stating that Fräulein Unbekannt revealed to her, under the strictest promise of secrecy, that she was Anastasia. When Die Nactausgabe erroneously printed the date as "fall of 1922", she wrote a letter of complaint to Kurt Pastenaci (9/27 1927) to correct the error of the newspaper. Her testimony is also supported by Dr. Chemnitz.

The name Anna Anderson was not used by Frau Tschaikowsky. It originated in New York when she checked into the Garden City Hotel as Mrs. Eugene Anderson in order to avoid the press. The name Anna was added when she was given a passport to go back to Germany. Since then, the name Anna Anderson was used by the press and the public alike. Anna Anderson did not "slander" anybody, all the mudslinging was done by her supporters and opponents while she very much stayed in the background. She was an intensely private person who resented any kind of publicity. When Frau Rathlef gave all the proceeds from her book to help pay her bills, it had to be done in secrecy since miss Anderson was furious about the publishing of her private life. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone to respond to specific points outwith the current topic. I'm going to assume that any editor not commenting on the matter at hand approves that which is decided by others. DrKiernan (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comments on 'lead'

The following have been listed :

75.21... has also suggested a way to organise material : 1. Statement of who she was. 2. Her claim. 3. Kurth's biography and popular culture. 4. DNA evidence.

(I don't think there is any need for 3. about Kurth and popular culture. That is a red herring. - 1 and 4 should be combined)

And Bookworm has also made a suggestion . 1. Statement. 2. Claim. 3. Her life. 4. DNA evidence.

(I think 1. Statement and 4. DNA evidence should be combined and 3. Her life - this should be kept to the bare minimum)

What is an appropriate sequence of topics? DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I basically think the following should happen:

1. Statement about identity with DNA evidence. 2. Her false claim to be Anastasia 3. Bare bones about her life - birth, change of identity, losing court case, marriage, death and place of burial. It should all be kept to a minimum to avoid any misunderstanding and POV inaccurate information. Finneganw 16:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Vorres, I, The Last Grand Duchess, p.19
2. Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna.1986.
3. Godl, J., (August 1998). Remembering Anna Anderson. "The European Royal History Journal", Issue VI: August 1998., Arturo Beeche, Publisher, Oakland,
4. Massie, R, The Romanovs The Final Chapter p.187
5. ^ Once A Grand Duchess: Xenia, Sister of Nicholas II, by John Van der Kiste & Coryne Hall, p.174
6. Vorres, I, The Last Grand Duchess, p.240
7. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20417240/
8. http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/05/01/Romanov-mystery-finally-solved/UPI-19691209678305/
9. State Archive of the Russian Federation, fund 662, l.1.No 16, fol 135v
10. Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral and the Grand Ducal Burial Chapel, p.129
11. Vadim Znamenov, Nicholas II:The Imperial Family, p.119
12. Russian Tsars by Boris Antonov, p.172
13. Kurth, Peter, Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson, 1983
14. Clarke, Lost Fortune of the Tsars, p.134
15. Massie, R., The Romanovs The Final Chapter p.193
16. ^ Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis by Peter Gill, Central Research and Support Establishment, Forensic Science Service, Aldermaston, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 4PN, UK, Pavel L. Ivanov, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 117984, Moscow, Russia, Colin Kimpton, Romelle Piercy, Nicola Benson, Gillian Tully, Ian Evett, Kevin Sullivan, Forensic Science Service, Priory House, Gooch Street North, Birmingham B5 6QQ, UK, Erika Hagelberg, University of Cambridge, Department of Biological Anthropology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK - http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v6/n2/abs/ng0294-130.html
17. DNA Confirms Remains Of Czar's Children
18. http://www.serfes.org/royal/rememberingAnnaAnderson.htm
19. Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral and the Grand Ducal Burial Chamber, p.114
20. Russian Tsars by Boris Antonov, p.172

• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles