Misplaced Pages

Talk:Anna Anderson: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:50, 8 July 2009 editFinneganw (talk | contribs)2,055 edits →A better picture of things← Previous edit Revision as of 07:44, 8 July 2009 edit undoDrKay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators159,933 edits Archiving: I think we have consensus on the lead, and the other points raised are not pertinent since the material discussed is not in the lead or recommended for inclusion.Next edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
|priority= |priority=
|listas=Anderson, Anna |listas=Anderson, Anna
}}

==Way forward?==
{{resolved|Consensus is to reduce the page to the lead and references for now. ] (]) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)}}

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

{{hidden|Resolved discussion|
Will the entry finally be re-written? Chopped into cat food? At least well written like normal encyclopedic entries are? I hope so. The consensus is good, but I feel a bit sorry for poor ChatNoir24...you lost the Peter Kurth campaign pal. As long as there is some reference to Kurth's fraud, what does it matter?] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] 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). ] (]) 10:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

:I am an admin. I may be able to supervise further discussion. ] (]) 10:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
}}
==Lead: overall structure==
{{resolved|The lead will contain a brief sketch of her claim, her life and the DNA evidence. ] (]) 12:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)}}
{{hidden|Resolved discussion|
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.] (]) 08:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

: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. ] 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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?] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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." --] (]) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

===Sides???===
I think it needs to be clarified that there are NO sides when it comes to Anderson. People either believe historic and scientific fact about her fraud or they are involved in perpetuating her fraud. Therefore there is only one side and that is what is proven correct. The other fantasy has no place in this article as it is completely disproven and unverifiable drivel. ] 10:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

===Break===
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. ] (]) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

: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. ] 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'''<ref> Vorres, I, ''The Last Grand Duchess'', p.19</ref><ref name="movie">''Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna''.1986.</ref> (26 December 1896 &ndash; 12 February 1984), was an impostor <ref> Godl, J., (August 1998). Remembering Anna Anderson. "The European Royal History Journal", Issue VI: August 1998., Arturo Beeche, Publisher, Oakland, </ref> <ref> Massie, R, ''The Romanovs The Final Chapter'' p.187</ref> who claimed to be ], the youngest daughter of Tsar ], the last Tsar of ], and his wife ].''

::''It is widely accepted that Anderson was '''Franziska Schanzkowska''', a ] factory worker.<ref name=Xenia174>''Once A Grand Duchess: Xenia, Sister of Nicholas II'', by ] & Coryne Hall, p.174</ref><ref name=Vorres240>Vorres, I, ''The Last Grand Duchess'', p.240</ref> 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.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20417240/</ref><ref>http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/05/01/Romanov-mystery-finally-solved/UPI-19691209678305/
</ref> ''

::''Claims that Anderson was the Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia first surfaced in the 1920s. Anastasia, who was born on 5 June 1901<ref> State Archive of the Russian Federation, fund 662, l.1.No 16, fol 135v</ref>, was murdered with her family on the night of July 17, 1918, by Bolsheviks in ], ].<ref>Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral and the Grand Ducal Burial Chapel, p.129 </ref><ref>Vadim Znamenov, Nicholas II:The Imperial Family, p.119</ref><ref>Russian Tsars by Boris Antonov, p.172</ref> 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 ] (then in ] but now in ]).<ref>Kurth, Peter, ''Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson'', 1983</ref> In 1927, based on information from that investigation, the Berlin Police officially accepted the identification of the "Unknown" as Schanzkowska.<ref>Clarke, Lost Fortune of the Tsars, p.134</ref>''

::''Anderson's body was cremated upon her death in 1984. Her ashes were buried in the churchyard at Castle Seeon, Germany.<ref name=Massie193>Massie, R., ''The Romanovs The Final Chapter'' p.193</ref> Ten years later, ]s were conducted on samples of her tissue that had been stored at a ] hospital following a medical procedure. Anderson's ] is a match to the Schanzkowska family, which indicates that she was Schanzkowska.<ref name=Xenia174/><ref name=nature>Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis by ], Central Research and Support Establishment, Forensic Science Service, Aldermaston, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 4PN, UK, ], Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 117984, Moscow, Russia, ], ], ], ], ], ], Forensic Science Service, Priory House, Gooch Street North, Birmingham B5 6QQ, UK, ], 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</ref> 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 ]. The DNA tests showed that Anderson's DNA did not match in any way the Romanov remains or ] (a great-nephew of Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna), but was consistent with the mitochondrial DNA profile of Karl Maucher, a great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska.<ref name=Xenia174/><ref name=nature/> Scientists announced in July 2008 that the results have been independently verified by laboratories such as the ] Medical School in the ]. This confirms that all the Romanovs were murdered.<ref name=cbsnews></ref> 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.<ref>http://www.serfes.org/royal/rememberingAnnaAnderson.htm</ref>''

::''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.<ref> Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral and the Grand Ducal Burial Chamber, p.114</ref><ref> Russian Tsars by Boris Antonov, p.172</ref>''

::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? ] (]) 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.] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not approve of any mention of the nurse story, which obviously did not happen. There were 800 pages of 'testimony' in the AA trial, most of which turned out to be false or unfounded. We cannot have a woman 'coming out' with full gory details in 1921 and then only a few months later doesn't know the difference between Anastasia and Tatiana and years later still has no memories. Since AA was not Anastasia, I'm afraid it's very clear now much of her story was the fabrication or embellishment of her supporters, namely Rathlef and Botkin, helped by a few others who backed her in court in hopes of a cut of the money. The nurse story is NOT fact and will NOT be included in the article. The claim began in 1922 when Peuthart called her Tatiana, and the nurse story is a pathetic attempt to predate the Peuthart incident to give more value to her claim, since a crazy woman giving you the idea when you're crazy too isn't a very strong case, but it makes no sense and since we know she was not really Anastasia and didn't have any information on the family until later, the nurse story is hereby disproven.] (]) 15:29, 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. ] (]) 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Vyvyn Basterd has already recommended Chat be given time out. I move that, if he's not going to be blocked, ChatNoir's pro Anderson propaganda and suggestions be completely ignored if we are to make any progress.15:32, 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? ] (]) 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. ] 16:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you both, the less info, the better. The more details we include, the more we're going to argue over them. One thing that is a given now should be that everything written by Rathlef and Botkin and most of what was claimed by her supporters is now degraded to fiction and should not be mentioned. I am all for describing her as FS, but I feel Bookworm is going to have a problem with this. Finneganw, how about you write what you would like and let us see if it's workable to the others? (Chat excluded of course}] (]) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::I agree with Finnegan's suggestion above regarding the sequence, though the details of the life history should include which countries she lived in and that there were multiple court cases and books/movies about the case as well. The name Franziska Schanzkowska should be mentioned in the lead since that was her likely birth name, but the name she used and her legal name at her death was Anastasia Manahan. It could perhaps be identified as her likely birth name in the bio box. --] (]) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the case for her being FS is far too strong to list it as 'likely.' We should state it as a fact, or at least leave it as 'most historians and all scientists and all major media outlets agree she was FS'. Only a few diehard AA supporters refuse to accept it and I don't think that's a good enough reason to leave her true identity in any doubt.] (]) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:Yes it is far more than likely. She has been 99.9% proved to be Schankowska. There is no room for doubt. The current wording,

'most historians and all scientists and all major media outlets agree she was FS'

is quite accurate. The word 'likely' is very POV and inaccurate. ] 01:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
}}

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

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

== Lead ==

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

===Lead: Opening statement===
Current drafts are:
'''''Anastasia Manahan''', usually known as '''Anna Anderson'''<ref> Vorres, I, ''The Last Grand Duchess'', p.19</ref><ref name="movie">''Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna''.1986.</ref> (26 December 1896 &ndash; 12 February 1984), was an impostor <ref> Godl, J., (August 1998). Remembering Anna Anderson. "The European Royal History Journal", Issue VI: August 1998., Arturo Beeche, Publisher, Oakland, </ref> <ref> Massie, R, ''The Romanovs The Final Chapter'' p.187</ref> who claimed to be ], the youngest daughter of Tsar ], the last Tsar of ], and his wife ].''

''It is widely accepted that Anderson was '''Franziska Schanzkowska''', a ] factory worker.<ref name=Xenia174>''Once A Grand Duchess: Xenia, Sister of Nicholas II'', by ] & Coryne Hall, p.174</ref><ref name=Vorres240>Vorres, I, ''The Last Grand Duchess'', p.240</ref> 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.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20417240/</ref><ref>http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/05/01/Romanov-mystery-finally-solved/UPI-19691209678305/
</ref> ''

and:

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

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

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

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

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

I have to warn you, if you try to use language that "suggests" she was Franziska, you'll get howled off the talk page (not by me, by my esteemed opposition). You must state she was Franziska, and there's an end of that particular detail. Also, I do not agree that a lesser-known alias be used in the heading, or shall we say, the "chief alias". She has been known as Anna Anderson since ca. 1921.] (]) 07:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

::But first, finneganw, it is NOT a POV about how she was best known throughout history. '''She was best known and most commonly aliased Anna Anderson'''. Even Massie calls her "Mrs. Anna Anderson" in 1967.] (]) 18:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:And here we go again with Aggiebeans reasoning: SHE WAS FS. Just because she says so. She is blatantly overlooking that the family never accepted her as such, that scientists found AA's face to be different from FS's. (The alleged photo of FS has never been authenticated and could be any girl.) She is also ovelooking the fact that FS disappeared several weeks after AA was found, that she had no scars, had never had a child, had no Hallux Valgus, was taller and wore shoes 3 sizes bigger than AA. She also had on her right hand ring finger a scar under her nail, causing a stiffness in the upper joint, according to her mother and her landlady. No such scar was found on AA. A close mitochondrial DNA match with someone who may be a grandson of FS's mother does not identify her as FS. ] (]) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Chat, I'm sorry, but you're not likely to get anywhere with that argument. How about this? Where else are these details cited other than in Kurth's book and on his web site? Is there another, independent source that uses the above details that are not connected to Kurth's book or the sources he used? --] (]) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

::This makes sense but these posts by ChatNoir24 need to end. While everyone else are willing to start over, ChatNoir24 just keeps repeating ]. The mainstream view here is well established and he'll need some fairly extraordinary sources to refute the DNA evidence. When there's disagreement that can't be dismissed as fringe it ] be included ] but fringe POVs don't belong here and repeating them over and over to halt progress ]. Your offer seems like a good idea though I doubt he'll be able to find such alternative sources but this really is the final chance. It's not like he hasn't been warned. ] (]) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

:And what do you call presenting false evidence in court? I call it lying. And Doris did not read Frau Rathlef's story in Die Nachtausgabe, she found a blurb in the Berlin Magazine Die Woche, a photo that was little more than a smudge of ink. As judge Bähte said: "From that you could recognize anybody or nobody] (]) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ahh, how do we present Franziska Schanskowska? What I mean is, she's Anna Anderson but no one really knows what happened to her former self as Franziska... do you follow me? If there is no source other than Kurth, what then? After all, we are calling her Schanzkowska, but what about a detail or line about Schanskowska in general? How did she "vanish" only to "become" Anna? Is that a fair idea to include? Am I being confusing?] (]) 07:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:Not confusing at all and it's an interesting question but I think you're moving a bit too fast now. Let's see what the others think about the proposed outline of the lead and then we'll return to this question. ] (]) 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::Good and fair, Vyvyan. You and DrKiernan have accomplished here what couldn't be done for the last 3 years or so. I wasn't even here back then!] (]) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

====Other imposters====
*''I think it is worthwhile to note that there were other fraudsters claiming to be Anastasia as well.'' ] 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
*''we cannot ignore the phony Anastasias who cropped up like Brussels sprouts, and that Franziska was the most famous.'' ] (]) 08:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
*''I'd probably add "...was the best known of several women who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia."'' --] (]) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This looks to me like consensus that the words "best known of several" or similar should be added to the lead. ] (]) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:"most famous of several" added. ] (]) 06:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
*There was no consensus reached here. Bookworm pushed for most famous. Others stated there were others. That is hardly the same thing as saying Anderson was the most famous. Perhaps one should write she was the most discredited as that is far more true. The others didn't have the shame of DNA testing to expose them. ] 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sources for "most famous" include Coble ''et al.'': , Godl: ". and {{citation|author=Anna Eunike Röhrig|authorlink=:de:Anna Eunike Röhrig|year=2007|title=Klug, schön und gefährlich: Die 100 berühmtesten Frauen der Weltgeschichte|publisher=C. H. Beck|location=Munich|isbn=978-3-406-54792-8|page=11}} (the title translates as "Wise, beautiful and dangerous: The 100 most famous women in world history"). I can't find any sources for "most discredited". ] (]) 09:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

===Lead: Claim===
Current section something like:
''Claims that Anderson was the Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia first surfaced in the 1920s. Anastasia, who was born on 5 June 1901<ref> State Archive of the Russian Federation, fund 662, l.1.No 16, fol 135v</ref>, was murdered with her family on the night of July 17, 1918, by Bolsheviks in ], ].<ref>Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral and the Grand Ducal Burial Chapel, p.129 </ref><ref>Vadim Znamenov, Nicholas II:The Imperial Family, p.119</ref><ref>Russian Tsars by Boris Antonov, p.172</ref> 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 ] (then in ] but now in ]).<ref>Kurth, Peter, ''Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson'', 1983</ref> In 1927, based on information from that investigation, the Berlin Police officially accepted the identification of the "Unknown" as Schanzkowska.<ref>Clarke, Lost Fortune of the Tsars, p.134</ref>''

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

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

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

:::Actually, I can't find any sources for the 26th. Kurth quotes Penny Wilson saying 22 December and it is given as 16 December 1896 by {{citation|author=Anna Eunike Röhrig|authorlink=:de:Anna Eunike Röhrig|year=2007|title=Klug, schön und gefährlich: Die 100 berühmtesten Frauen der Weltgeschichte|publisher=C. H. Beck|location=Munich|isbn=978-3-406-54792-8|page=11}} and {{citation|author=Godl, John|date=25 March 2000|title=Remembering Anna Anderson|url=http://www.serfes.org/royal/rememberingannaanderson.htm|publisher=Archimandrite Nektarios Serfes|location=Boise, Idaho|accessdate=29 June 2009}} (but he gets the death day wrong).
:::If there is confusion or uncertainty over the day, we could just say "December 1896" and leave off the date. ] (]) 09:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

====Removals====
{{resolved|Anastasia's birth date removed. ] 08:26, 22 June 2009}}
{{hidden|Resolved discussion|
Can we remove Anastasia's birth date in the same way as we intend to remove Anastasia's re-burial? ] (]) 08:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)



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

====Lawsuit?====
{{resolved|Sentence on the lawsuit added. ] (]) 08:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{hidden|Resolved discussion|
:Recommendation: specify lawsuit's nature and date(s). No more. I.e., state it in language that would in the modern world be cited in another lawsuit.] (]) 08:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:Lawsuit - the main point to be stressed with the lawsuit that went for decades is that the court came down with the ruling that Anderson had failed to prove that she was Anastasia. ] 09:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::'''I agree with finneganw's exact phrasing above''', which will then require only one source, probably already cited.] (]) 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Lead: Life===
{{resolved|Draft at ]. ] (]) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)}}
{{hidden|Resolved discussion|
Which aspects of her life should be included? Remember this is the '''lead''' only. We need a very brief sketch and no details. Lengthy or off-topic posts should be ignored. Do not respond to detailed points. Do not try to deal with too many specific points at once, and do not respond to posts which repeat the same points again and again. You need to break out of the cycle by just ignoring off-topic or clearly disputed posts which repeat the same arguments that you've heard countless times before. ] (]) 07:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:I say we do not go into "aspects of her life". Biographical truth only. Or else define "aspects".] (]) 07:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::I meant biography. ] (]) 07:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

===Lead: Kurth===
{{resolved|The consensus is not to mention Kurth in the lead. ] (]) 09:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)}}
{{hidden|Resolved discussion|
Should Kurth be mentioned? '''Note Kurth is a living person. ] applies.''' If accusations of fraud can not be substantiated then they must not be made. Indeed, such allegations may be blanked and any previous posts refactored if the claim cannot be verified by a reliable source who uses the term. ] (]) 07:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:With due respect you're stretching BLP policy here. Kurth was far too involved with Anna to be considered a reliable source ''per our own standards''. We don't need to source that. The onus is on those who want to use the book to prove that these claims of his appear outside his own book in reliable independent sources. <s>To use BLP policy to circumvent that requirement is gaming and I for one will not allow anyone to use BLP policy to game ] and ].</s> If we can't agree on this then he shouldn't be mentioned or used as a source at all. ] (]) 07:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::I am not gaming. You have misread my comment. I never said anything about whether the book should be used as a source. I want a discussion of whether he should be mentioned in the lead only. There's nothing controversial about saying "Peter Kurth wrote a book about her." The question is should such a statement appear in the lead or not? You've said, No. Others say, Yes. I am trying to resolve that question only, not anything else. ] (]) 07:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. I've struck the part about gaming. However, the rest of my comment stands. I think we should remove Kurth from the equation and move forward with the rest of the lead. ] (]) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::OK by me.] (]) 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
}} }}


Line 456: Line 95:


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

==Draft lead==
At ]. If you approve of the draft then say so. If you don't then suggest improvements here. See ] for guidance on lead sections. ] (]) 07:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

:The DNA reports are reference 2. They certainly should also be mentioned in the future "DNA evidence" section.
:Can you suggest an alternative wording that gets around the 1921/22 argument? Originally, I had "in the 1920s" rather than "a year or two" but I thought "1920s" looked repetitive beside "1920". How about "early years of that decade" or "soon after the suicide attempt"? ] (]) 10:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Response to draft lead - amended==

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

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

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

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

:In the first paragraph, I've already provided three reliable references for "most famous", besides which it's obvious. We've all heard of Anderson, no-one's heard of the others. We cannot take their own word that they are "respected": we need independent, secondary sources for that, so that reference won't do for that term.
:In the second paragraph, we need references for "refused" as she could have been amnesiac. The term "protective custody" is loaded. "notoriety" requires a reference, and a balancing sentence if notoriety is disputed.
:In the third paragraph, "placed in a mental hospital" is loaded. It is not unusual for 80-odd-year olds to become confused and senile and require institutionalisation. "Eminent" requires independent, third-party references. I've actually also seen that I feel uncomfortable using "historians", because none of those three people have a professional qualification or an academic position in history. We need better references to claim that, maybe Massie and Klier, who are historians, if they accept Anderson was Schanzkowska. ] (]) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't see any reason to avoid or sugar coat the fact that the woman spent a great deal of time in mental institutions, it all goes in with her character as she was pretending to be a dead princess. These are facts of her life. It would also be interesting to tell that her husband abducted her from one facility and spent days on the run with police in pursuit due to the fact he was afraid she'd be committed. This is how her life ended, her own true story, not Anastasia's. She was indeed put in a mental home after her suicide attempt, and her claim began when a fellow mental patient, looking at Romamov magazines, told her she looked like Tatiana. (though AA supporters try desperately to deny this, that is what happened) She had also been in other mental homes at various other times throughout her life, such as in the early 30's in NY when she went on a rampage at the home of the Standard Oil heiress and ran naked across the rooftop tossing objects at people below. Yes, we have a reference for this too. It is also interesting to note that FS was declared mentally insane in 1916. While Anderson supporters will deny AA was ever insane, sane people do not spend that much time in mental institutions. I also think it's quite picky to need a reference for 'eminent' scientists and historians, their names alone should show this as they are all famous and respected. The fact is, EVERYBODY except Peter Kurth and a few conspiracy theorists accept the results and identity, and a sensible, factual article need not owe anything to appease them.] (]) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
:Your outline is far too detailed for the lead. Ordinarily, all the stays in institutions would concertina into a single sentence such as "She was committed to asylums on several occasions.", and there would be no specific examples given. The detail would be given in the body of the article. If these "eminent" people really were "famous" we'd have wikipedia articles about them. Except for John Van der Kiste, who I have heard of, they haven't; nor had I heard of any of them, except Van der Kiste, before now. There is a related guideline on this: ]. As for "historians", this should be easy to address by providing reliable sources that say that historians accept she was Schanzkowska. If there aren't any, then we can't say it. ] (]) 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:The article says she checked the database again and gives the date as 1999, that is 5 years from 1994.] (]) 10:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
:And if you read what I wrote, you will see that I agree on the acceptance of the "identifidation" made by Knopf.] (]) 17:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you fighting it?] (]) 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Because Chat is a rabid Anderson supporter and that has been extremely obvious for many years. He can't see reality and doesn't understand the meaning of verifiable fact. ] 00:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Mental health?==
*OK, do we need to beat the dead horse about Anna's mental health so much? So, let's say we do want to beat that dead horse--where are the exact sources that stated "mental illness" ref: Anna? I do not know, that is why I mention it. What will this do except to show that she spent lots of time in hospitals? And again, I think a good authority or two is more than enough to show she was mental...why is that so important? Had Princess Anastasia truly survived, she'd have been more mental than anyone! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

::The ] does not say she was judged mentally ill or that she died in a mental hospital or that the Berlin police identified her as FS.
::She used "Anderson" for a hotel stay and she used it on a passport. So, she used the name. I've changed "adopted" to "used". Typo corrected. ] (]) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

:Fact:She was put up at Dalldorf because the Berlin Police had not managed to identify her and had no idea of what to do with her. Diagnosis: Depression. As soon as somebody was willing to take her in, she was free to go. (It is curious to see that the police could not identify her as FS since FS had been in and out of sanatoria in Berlin for years and was known by quite an array of hospital personnel.)
Fact: She was sent to 4 Winds Sanatorium without being examined by a doctor. Diagnosis at the sanatorium: Just needs rest for her frayed nerves. Upon arrival at Ilten, she was told that she was free to go at once, there was nothing mentally wrong with her.
Fact: In 1983, she was committed to Blue Ridge Hospital where she was placed in the psychiatric ward for observation and examination. Having found no evidence of mental illness, she was transferred to the University of Virginia Medical Center.
Fact: No doctor who examined her ever stated that she showed signs of mental illness. ] (]) 00:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

:Please stick to the facts, your own opinion has no place in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

No I think that would be inaccurate. Anderson was in mental hospitals and was placed there on judicial order more than once. It would be inaccurate to suggest otherwise. The woman had a long history of mental illness. ] 09:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:In how many mental hospitals was she placed? ] (]) 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:I've taken out "several asylums". It doesn't appear to be true. For the period in question, between 1927 and 1968, everyone above appears to agree that she was in one asylum only. ] (]) 09:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*You all know very well that what has been suggested by Kiernan and seconded by me is good enough. HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS, SEVERAL HOSPITALIZATIONS. Stop this aggiebeaning of the topic and move it along! Jeez, how CRAZY does the damned old fraud have to be to satisfy you? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

:If you want to say that AA was mentally ill, you have to name the doctors who determined that she was. The fact is that every doctor who evaluated her, and there were quite a few, found no sign of mental illness, all the way up to her stay at the Blue Ridge Hospital in the early 80's. The three doctors who signed the commitment papers in New York, did NOT examine her, they were bribed to sign the commitment papers, nothing more, nothing less. That's why their names are concealed in Lloyd-Smith's letter. If you want to state that she was mentally ill, you have to back it up, and so far, you have not been able to.] (]) 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
::The proposed lead does not say that. So, I take it then that you are happy with the way it is worded? ] (]) 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes she was, and it showed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:This is what Geoffrey Oxlee himself has to say about the photo comparison:
it was a piece for TV. I felt at the time that the imagery evidence pointed to the possibility that Franchesca was Anna Anderson and said so. However, the material for the comparison was not as good as one would have wished and we compared Franchesca with no one other than Anna Anderson. I believe that other forensic evidence was more compelling. I have kept a copy of neither the TV tape nor my work on this task. Sorry I cant be more specific
Geoffrey Oxlee.
(I do, of course, have Geoffrey Oxlee's permission to print this.) ] (]) 14:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
::I believe this quote, but unfortunately it can't be used in the article without an appropriate source. ] (]) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision as of 07:44, 8 July 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anna Anderson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
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.
WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

References

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

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

Well, I believe the article will be expanded with a full rewrite, so hopefully this issue won't persist. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
1. I did NOT propose removing citations willy-nilly, or even much at all, but the reference material is at some point going to sway toward a POV of some kind-- it's thrice the length of the entry! So the new person appearing above is quite correct: leave it, since it will expand somewhat. And I do not appreciate a valid question to be described as "dubious". This page is finally being used rightly and nonsense like that is not needed, finneganw.
2. No one looks like they're taking a week off, but go right ahead if you want. This thing is about finished and done very well, thanks to DrKiernan and Vyvyan's super-concentrated hard work.76.195.82.162 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

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

Instead, we can work on expanding less contended sections.

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

I think the reasons have been pretty clearly outlined why a brief sketch of /Schankowska/Anderson's life is very difficult indeed to write. I think that has been explained. Finneganw 14:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's that hard to write a brief sketch because the key events that are not yet mentioned in the lead (suicide attempt, institutionalisation, marriage, life in the United States) are not contentious. It only requires someone to draft it. You've already had a couple of attempts yourself: "For a time she went by the name Fraulein Unbekannt (German for Miss Unknown} as she refused to reveal her identity to anybody in the mental hospital she had been placed in due to a suicide attempt. Later she adopted the false name of Tschiakovsky and later Anderson. Late in her life she married a John Manahan and adopted his name." and "Bare bones about her life - birth, change of identity, losing court case, marriage, death and place of burial." DrKiernan (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

DNA evidence

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

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

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

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

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

I think more needs to be said about the fact that she was fingered as FS as early as 1927, and the Berlin police did accept the identification made by the private detectives that she was FS, a young woman who went missing in Berlin around the same time AA appeared. This would make more sense when explaining why the DNA matched. I really think there is too much detail on the bodies and ages of the family members, while what you have written is good and true, just as I wanted to avoid the part stating as fact Anastasia was buried in 1998, I don't like mentioning that there is still some question over whether she was the buried body or the burned one found in 2007. Personally I feel the evidence much more strongly points to her being the burned body, and this would be more dramatic that she was only recently found when some claimed she'd never be, but the fact is even the scientists are not sure which girl was which due to a lack of nuclear DNA sample from the girls when they were alive to match to the skeletons. IMO, mentioning that there is still some controversy- even though there is NO controversy on whether or not they all died in 1918- only invites the kind of speculation and questions we are trying to bury with this article.It would be best to word it that all the bodies are found and identified and there is no question they all died together, and leave out all the stuff about why she may be which body, or how old they all were, etc.Aggiebean (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Redacted. There's no consensus on the inclusion of the 1920s identification (see #Franziska Schanzkowska above). I've removed some of the detail on ages of family members. I'd prefer to discuss the two separate studies one after the other; I see no controversy about Anastasia's death. It is known that she died, and no-one here has claimed otherwise. DrKiernan (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popular culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1986 film reference?

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

It is there, listed above as:

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

You see what you want to see...and yes, my apologies for missing the actual reference, listed in the entry. 76.195.93.15 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. Gill, Peter; Ivanov, Pavel L., Kimpton, Colin, Piercy, Romelle; Benson, Nicola; Tully, Gillian; Evett, Ian; Hagelberg, Erika; Sullivan, Kevin (February 1994), "Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis", Nature Genetics: 130–135, doi:10.1038/ng0294-130, retrieved 29 June 2009 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |volum= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. Russian Tsars by Boris Antonov, p.172
  3. Cite error: The named reference godl1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Cite error: The named reference Xenia174 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference nature was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. Cite error: The named reference godl2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference plosone was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. Cite error: The named reference cbsnews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. Gutterman, Steve (2007), Remains of czar heir may have been found, Associated Press, retrieved 24 August 2007
  10. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/30/russia.czar/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Categories: